Laetrile : nutritional control for cancer with vitamin B-17 [Revised] 0918738024, 9780918738028

Citation preview

$3.95

A NUTRI-BOOK

GLENN D. KITTLER

Completel relisededition of “LAPTRILE: CONTROL FOR-CANCER”— the book that challenged traditional | cancer treatments, FEATURES Cancer Prevention with common foods containing Vitamin B-17. }

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/laetrilenutritio000O0kitt

Worldwide Distribution

by THE NUTRI—BOOKS CORP. Box 5793 Denver, Colorado 80217

Glenn D. Kittler, author of LAETRILE: NUTRITIONAL CONTROL FOR CANCER WITH VITAMIN B-17 and a well known journalist, has written widely on scientific subjects. His work has appeared in Reader’s Digest, The Saturday Evening Post, The American Weekly, This Week, Catholic Digest, Sign, Pageant, Weight Watchers, in numerous other national magazines and in anthologies. He has been a newspaper reporter in Chicago and Norfolk, an editor of Coronet and a contributing editor to Guideposts. Mr. Kittler’s forty books include Triumph, Hail to the Chief!, The Papal Princes and Equatorial Africa: New World of Tomorrow.

ANE LINE NUTRITIONAL CONTROL FOR CANCER

with Vitamin B-17 GLENN D. KITTLER

Royal Publications, a nc. 790 W. Tennessee Ave Denver, Colorado 80223 United States of America

Copyright ©1963 by Glenn D. Kittler Copyright ©1978, revised edition, by Glenn D. K ittler All Rights Reserved

No part of this book may be copied or reproduced in any form without the written consent of the publisher.

ISBN:

(trade size edition) 0-918738-02-4

Manufactured in the United States of America First edition : March, 1963 Revised edition : July 1978

Royal Publications, Inc. 790 W. Tennessee Avenue Denver, Colorado 80223

im)

TABLE OF CONTENTS OVC WOLG

ee

tenn

eters A eeMae each To

lin Setat fs

Chapter 1:

The Beginning of the End

Chapter 2:

“The:Seedsiof:Combat..-.

Chapters:

—Portraitofe Killer

Chapter 4:

The Mystery That Nature Solved

Chapter 5:

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

.....

Chapter 6:

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

.....

Chapter 7:

New Friends and Old Enemies

Chapter 8:

The People Versus the Establishment

Chapter 9;.

.Cancer. and Nutrition...

............

tit eel

BiDHOOEAIIE mera

IG CAEN

Re

oy

Ma

eA ead

ne ae okt

orteases oat Gia oot ac Sn

alae ai

eg hieee Cee ome a OF

INDEX TO APPENDIX

The Nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17) Their Nature, Occurrence and Metabolic Significance. Antineoplastic Vitamin B-17, by Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. ..... The Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited, by Charles Gurchot: 4.45, 208 Es PPO eA Pe

A Letter Analyzing the Confused Statistics On a Laetrile Test at Southern Research Institute, by DraBernard ‘Kenton’ *.45 sce eee oe re wate

Use of Laetrile In the Treatment of Cancer: Two Reports of Observations of Laetrile Therapy in Mexico by a Team of Israeli Doctors: Re DOntANGIM Det he wer watecs acct k eescer yee areata IREpOrteNuMDEr 2 eee eter et ee eee ere Burying Caesar: An Analysis of the Laetrile ProblemabyeMark McCarty “Sie. co. saa

es

eee

Laetrile Works: Further Analysis of the Political and Scientific Controversies Involving Laetrile, by Mark IV CAEL erred fone, ach we ohne AN PE c sR a ae Chemotherapy of Inoperable Cancer: Preliminary Report of 10 Cases Treated With Laetrile, by John A. MoOtrones M.D. 9225 558 ets bho re eee Pe ha ee

Physician’s Handbook of Vitamin B-17 Therapy, by The McNaughton Foundation. 305.0... a. cna

This book is dedicated to the members organizations:

of the following

Cancer Control Society Committee

for Freedom

of Choice

in Cancer Therapy

Foundation for Alternative Cancer Therapies

International

Association of Cancer Victors and Friends

National Health Federation Second Opinion Victory Over Cancer Action League

Their dedication, loyalty, enthusiasm and hard work have brought about the triumph of Laetrile.

Glenn D. Kittler

7 pilidge i FRigram

sha “ai} a

Ci

ee

ea

owe

ec

Bee

e Cone

ccamtealegie

aa

erst

—

esi

ay

-

Sy

wy

n

a

ats

&.

ot th pts >. «ot,~ fnoite

yt

ent i

hee a3

elie

te oaes

UY

ik |bibey tual alto, ove weit,

eal

einat’ 4.: watte

> dpclivic of the Lae

de

a

An

yale

43). cya

ietien

‘i oad. a

-

“

. Reunt 2 Seal

foled, vp

se

7

ae

Soe + teesine Ciel :~~ TheSea

i

eo

&

‘

~~

a

create With tnvest ‘

af:

:

fisttet

my eat

ae

1

®=

hietet ‘ee

ees se

‘a

208i :

Aa

va

Biss

—

camdensacar

so

E

=

Veen Bi? by Oh Pee Ti!

Tk

a

—

ee

@ Gud Seep halls Siento

aay

9

eT

:

1a

.

:

——

s

=

FOREWORD

by Andrew R. L. McNaughton President and Founder, The McNaughton Foundation

More than fifteen years have gone by since LAETRILE— CONTROL FOR CANCER by Glenn D. Kittler first appeared. Little did I realize, when writing the foreword to this important book, that today, so many years later, the Laetrile controversy would be raging not only unabated but with ever growing ferocity. In this powerful sequel to his orginal work, Mr. Kittler chronicles the important happenings of these long and intervening years and takes a searching look at what lies ahead. Once again I am privileged to contribute a few thoughts by way of a foreword to this expanded and updated version of Glenn Kittler’s widely read original work. In my previous foreword, I made a strong plea for all concerned to work together in harmony to better solve this most serious problem of the worsening cancer epidemic. I wrote then: “With the positive cooperation of the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, cancer could soon join the list of those diseases which mankind no longer fears. The reward, in terms of human happiness alone, could be immense.” Today, fifteen weary years later, I am not so naive. In place of the expected cooperation, we have endured these past fifteen years, an hysterical and ill-informed campaign mounted by the “Cancer Establishment,” against 1x

x

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Laetrile and the rationale of its proposed use, and also the descent, by some of these organizations, into continuing and unseemly diatribes aimed at the Laetrile proponents. The principal offender has been the American Cancer Soci-

ety which long has been acting in blind panic as if, in the ideas of the Laetrile proponents, the ACS senses the potential of its coming demise. Certainly a close and searching look at the extravagant administrative overhead and questionable accomplishments of the American Cancer Society is more than overdue. The American Medical Association, while all too frequently guardians of the status quo to the detriment of the development of new approaches, has recently commenced to treat the problem of Laetrile in a more statesmanlike manner, as befits such an influential doctors’ union. Progress, these intervening years, divides naturally into two major areas: scientific and political. In the scientific area progress has been at a slow but steady pace. Increases in knowledge of the relationship of cancer to the internal and external milieu have resulted in a constantly improving ability to successfully utilize Laetrile as an essential component of a rational approach to the prevention and control of cancer.

The opponents of Laetrile are wont to criticize the workers in this field as persons whose ideas are in a constant state of flux. This, of course, we accept as a compliment: when ideas are so rigidly held that change with advancing knowledge is not possible, progress stops. These days we speak of the ‘‘Holistic Approach to the Metabolic Therapy of Cancer with Vitamin B-17.” Here, Laetrile is not regarded as a “magic bullet’ but rather as a central factor in a therapeutic rationale which includes other components such as nutrition; Vitamin C in adequate doses; vitamins, minerals, and enzymes in proper physiological balance; enhancement of the immune system; appropriate rest and exercise; and, importantly, consideration of the mind-body relationship of each individual patient. This holistic concept of the treatment of cancer, and

indeed all disease, does not readily lend itself to compli-

Foreword

xi

ance with the efficacy requirements of the Food and Drug Administration as they now stand. These regulations attempt, in a Cartesian manner, to isolate the contribution of each component of a proposed therapy. However, as long known, in medicine, as in other disciplines, the effect of synergism is such that the whole is frequently greater than the sum of the individual parts. Clearly the “orthodox” conceptual framework of cancer research and therapy today has not proven very productive. More people now per 100,000 of our population are dying of cancer, at an earlier age, then ever before in the hisory of the world. Is it not possible that existing regulations of the Food and Drug Administration, with respect to the testing of new cancer therapies, are the result of a preconceived and overly simplistic understanding of the true nature of health and disease and do themselves tend to inhibit the development of new paradigms? It is not my contention that we should abandon the existing safeguards of the Food and Drug regulations but that we should take care not to consider them as the tablets of Moses. We should administer them so as not to preclude, as in the case of Laetrile, the orderly development of basic new concepts.

One of the essential requirements of a healthy society is the constant examination and questioning of the premises on which the regulations of the civil government are based. Perhaps the Laetrile controversy is an indication that a re-examination of the premises behind the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration is in order. Such an examination, properly undertaken, could be most constructive. This is a basic and necessary precondition to the intelligent consideration of the various bills now germinating in which it is proposed to ensure that the FDA has the authority to properly implement the responsibilities entrusted to it by Congress. Much more could be said on this subject but now we must deal with the area of cancer politics and the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy.

The phenominal rise of the Committee for Freedom of Choice, under the outstanding leadership of Robert Bradford

xii

LAETRILE :Nutritional Control for Cancer

and Frank Salaman, has altered the Laetrile political picture almost beyond recognition. The success of the Committee in skillfully exploiting, at a grass roots level, public disenchantment with the widespread lack of integrity at all levels of our government and current exasperation with the ever-growing bureaucracies has been responsible for a quantum leap forward in the public understanding and demand for the legalization of Laetrile. This success, coupled with the Committee’s emphasis on the unconstitutionality of any interference with the sacrosanct doctor/patient relationship and the call for informed freedom of choice in cancer therapy, has shaken the pillars of medical politics in the United States as seldom before. As a direct result of the efforts of the various Committee chapters around the country, some 17 states have now “‘legalized” or — in the more expressive Committee terminology— “decriminalized” the use of Laetrile. A growing number of other states are well advanced in the passage of similar legislation. As 1978 dawned, a Federal Court ruled that ‘“‘Laetrile (Amygdalin) is exempt from the ‘new drug’ requirements” of the Food and Drug Administration and that ‘‘The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and his subordinates in the Food and Drug Administration are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from interfering with the use of Laetrile (Amygdalin) for the care or treatment of cancer by a person who is, or believes he is, suffering from the disease.”” The order also prohibited interference with the importation and introduction into interstate commerce of Laetrile on the basis of any alleged “new drug” status. The H.E.W. and the F.D.A. were, finally, prohibited from interfering “with any licensed medical practitioner in administering Laetrile (Amygdalin) in the care or treatment of his cancer patients.” An F.D.A. appeal to delay enforcement of this ruling until the case could be heard by the 10th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver was denied, according to an Associated Press dispatch dated Christmas Day — a life-saving Christmas present for many thousands of Americans.

Foreword

xiii

Laetrile seminars, under the sponsorship of the Committee, are being held in state after state. The Committee is doing an excellent and much needed job with these seminars and it is urgent that they be increased in frequency and expanded in scope. Doctors and patients alike must learn that Laetrile is not a magic bullet put an integral and central component

of a therapy

which

treats

the whole

person. THE

HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THE METABOLIC THERAPY OF CANCER WITH VITAMIN B-17 is a phrase which is being heard more and more frequently. The treatment of the whole person with basic emphasis on the cause of the disease, while not neglecting the amelioration of the symptoms, is the medical pattern of the immediate future. Enlightened medicine today recognizes, as did the ancient peoples of the world, that total health involves a state of ease as contrasted with dis-ease in the functioning of both body and mind. Dysfunctions of the mind react with areas of metabolic weakness in the body producing conditions conducive to disease. In the words of Thornton Wilder: “‘Despair probes the organs one by one, seeking the easiest entrance for the kill.” As I write this foreword, I have before me a proposal by the National Cancer Institute to carry out retrospective studies on the Laetrile patients who have been treated, in the past, both here and abroad. That such a study is contemplated could be taken as a sign that, at long last, a serious clinical investigation of Laetrile is about to commence. Confidence in the objectivity of such a study is considerably diminished by the news that the FDA is distributing large warning posters in public places claiming that the use of Laetrile is both hazardous and without value. Like the old saw of giving the prisoner a fair trial before the hanging: is it the position of the FDA that, in science, you first reach a conclusion and only then search for the supporting evidence? Experience has made us all most skeptical. All these are minor skirmishes in a war in which the final victory is no longer in doubt. Now, as we face the future, the

xiv

LAETRILE: Nutritional Control for Cancer

question is: how can we speed the day when Laetrile will be freely available? By this time it should be quite apparent, despite the increased virulence of the attacks on Laetrile, that thoughtful people everywhere are asking: why not permit terminal cancer patients, for whom orthodoxy is conceded to offer no further hope, access to Laetrile therapy without harassment? Not only is the right to new therapies, provided there is informed consent, implicit in our Constitution but, in this manner, valuable insight would be gained into the potential of Laetrile therapy at increasingly earlier stages of this disease. One day, perhaps, the realization will dawn on all of us that the most effective treatment for cancer is prevention. Here Vitamin B-17 will come, eventually, into its true role. Over the years, the Laterile movement has gained a respect based on fear from the ACS, the FDA, the AMA, the NCI and the others as a result of success in direct appeals to the people, in the treatment of advanced cancer patients, and in the political area. As one leading spokesman for our opposition said, recently, to this author: “You Laetrile people have had such an impact socially, economically, and politically that we can no longer afford to ignore you.” Now that we can no longer be ignored, we must use our hard-won strength constructively, in the interests of the cancer patients whose representatives we are, to win adherents from within the system by the avoidance of unfounded claims and by the unassailable logic of our position. If the Cancer Control Society, the Committee for Freedom of Choice, the Foundation for Alternative Cancer Therapies, the International Association of Cancer Victors and Friends, the National Health Federation, the Victory Over Cancer Action League and the other Laetrile organizations are truly dedicated to making Laetrile available to the people of this country, they must all unite in commencing a ‘dialogue of

reason with the present “Cancer Establishment.”

Foreword

xv

As is evidenced from the history of the development of new ideas throughout the ages, it is thus that we will ourselves, one day, become the Cancer Establishment.

Andrew R. L. McNaughton The McNaughton Foundation P. O. Box B-17 San Ysidro, California 92073

et

Xs

a

t- Lister eeSult

:

. sper py! :

idea

(21

ihe AdWets

> SS

o

.

mT

7

ae

.

SF

L/S ——

;

=

ny

tee

=

.

>

@e7ecnh i reais

ae

wer

@&

‘jaa ve?

«>

510,

eanmle

As

Oh®-

tenes

Gcmaey,

i

Ge tat

ar

EA

com

ror

fies

of wearers €

yp ve neet Ga

ye

‘aeer

neatly

oak

)

ic

-

a er

mere

eee Ao rm mnt

4%

FiaA,

he Crewon aul aabake

thre

a

ha

We,4 fee

avin

Se

>

var ACA, Tin

Me

eae

wig sun iiraby,

heer

- GF

PIVeetinige

gfhni

y the

and

oF

0

al

ihe

oY

Oe

opieDy Tie ia

vi

Gite Carus (un! cockety. Pe a’ Atverialive ae ieee, My “ws OP

a rane ge' oe ee eT oy

Crier Voce

o> Yirages Wad The aw Lavirie« aa rience | o> Willa i}

ay

sz

:

@

CHAPTER

1

The Beginning of the End

One day in April 1977, an event of utmost importance took place quietly and inauspiciously at the U.S. Customs office at the Mexican border near San Ysidro, California. That day, an American cancer patient brought into this country legally for the first time a supply of Laetrile, the highly controversial anti-cancer drug, without having to go to court to obtain the right to do so. This time, the authority to bring the Laetrile into the country was a class action court order issued weeks earlier by Judge Luther Bohanon, of the U.S. District Court of Western Oklahoma. Previously, when a cancer patient wanted to undergo Laetrile therapy, he had to get a lawyer and go into Federal court where his doctor had to testify that the patient had terminal cancer and nothing more could be done for him by orthodox modalities. Then it was up to the judge to decide whether the patient could bring Laetrile into the country without committing a crime and whether his doctor could treat him with it without losing his license. Over the preceding months, this permission had been granted by the courts several times; but it was an expensive procedure, it took a lot of time, and often the Laetrile arrived too late to do the patient much good. But all that was changed now. Now, in order to obtain Laetrile, all a patient had to do was sign a copy of the court order and get a prescription for Laetrile from a doctor. He could then either bring the Laetrile into the U.S. himself or he could have it mailed to him. That April morning, therefore, produced an historic moment. A certain crime had been wiped off the books of American law. I was there. I had waited twenty-five years for this moment.

]

y)

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Also there was Andrew R. L. McNaughton, founder and president of The McNaughton Foundation. McNaughton had waited almost as long as I had for this moment. But he had done more than wait. In cooperation with the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy, he had been instrumental in bringing the moment about. Over the weeks since the court order had been issued, McNaughton had been meeting with government officials in California, setting up the necessary procedures. This was an extremely delicate area. The government agency that was most outraged by the court order was the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, aggressive foe of Laetrile for many years. The F.D.A. had, in fact, sought the cooperation of other government agencies in making Laetrile illegal and keeping it out of the country. This, then, was sensitive ground, carrying out a court order without ruffling any feathers. McNaughton did his job well. The cancer patient that pioneer April morning was a sevenyear-old boy, traveling with his parents. The boy had been on Laetrile previously, had responded favorably and was able to go back to his California home, but that time his parents had to smuggle in the maintenance supply of Laetrile the boy needed. It had been a terrifying experience for them. Had they been caught, they could have gone to jail, as others had. But they made it. With time, however, the boy’s supply of Laetrile ran out. It was also necessary to take the boy back to Mexico for check-ups, for additional therapy if needed, and for more Laetrile to be used at home. This time, going home was far different. Even so, the boy’s parents were nervous. They were aware that they were doing something for the first time, and they were aware that something could go wrong. But they had been carefully rehearsed. Earlier that morning I was present as Andrew McNaughton explained the procedure to the California couple again and again, until they felt they understood it. Then I rode to the border with McNaughton in his car, the California family right behind us. At Customs, McNaughton said to the agent at the gate, “The people in the car behind us are bringing in a

The Beginning of the End supply

of Laetrile

3

on a court order. They will have to go

through inspection and pay the duty.” The young guard looked startled. He had evidently been instructed to watch for Laetrile smugglers, and apparently this was the first time people had admitted to him that they had the material with them. “Okay,” he said, “but I don’t know anything about a court order.” He pointed to a fencedoff area about a hundred feet away. ‘Park in there and go into the office and talk to the agents at the desk. Maybe they know something about a court order.”’ We drove to the designated area and parked. We had to wait several minutes for the California family because it was necessary for them to show the guard that they were bringing in Laetrile and nothing else. When we were all together, we went into the office and to the counter that was there. A uniformed Customs agent stepped to us. “Can I help you?” “I believe so,” McNaughton said. “These people are bringing in a supply of Laetrile on a court order.” The agent nodded knowingly. “May I see some identification?” The father presented his driver’s license and some credit cards. The agent nodded. “And your copy of the court order?” The father presented it. “And the doctor’s prescription?” The father presented it **And the bill of sale?” The father presented it. The agent said: ‘“‘You’ll have to pay a five percent duty on this.” “I know,” the fatner saia. “I'll figure it out, the agent said. And will you please fill out this form?” McNaughton said: “I will.” It was a simple customs form. As McNaughton worked on the form, the Director of Customs for the Port of San Ysidro, Mr. Najera, came from an inner office. He greeted McNaughton with a nod and

4

LAETRILE: Nutritional Control for Cancer

asked: “Is everything “Yes, it is, thank better come along “Good idea.” “T’ll probably be

all right?’’ you,’ McNaughton said. “I thought I’d on the first few trips to make sure.” back

this afternoon

with

some

more

people.” ‘ “All right. The men have been informed. If you have any problems, let me know.” “My secretary will be coming through tomorrow with some Laetrile to be mailed.” “Okay. If she has any problems, tell her to ask for me.” “Thank you.” The uniformed agent returned and announced the price of the duty. The father asked: “Will you take a traveler’s check?” VCSie The father signed the check. In moments, the agent was back with the change. He looked at the young father and young mother and the small boy, and he asked softly: “Who’s got it?” The young mother also spoke softly. “The boy,” she said. The agent looked at the boy and nodded. Then he said: “A neighbor of mine has got it. He has to go into Mexico every day to get his Laetrile.” The father said: ‘“‘He won’t have to do that anymore.” “No, he won’t, will he?” said the agent, almost smiling. “T never thought I’d live to see the day.” “Neither did we,”’ said the father. The mother asked: ‘‘How is your neighbor doing?” The agent shrugged. “He says he’s feeling better. He looks better.” “That’s good.” “Yes, it is. Well,” said the Customs agent, “I guess everything’s in order. You can go now. Have a pleasant trip home.” It was as simple as that. After a few tense minutes at the U.S. — Mexican border, a crime had been eradicated.

The Beginning of the End

BS

No longer would hundreds -- thousands, actually - of American cancer patients have ‘to undergo the shattering experience of trying to smuggle Laetrile into the country. No longer would American cancer patients and their American doctors have to turn to the black market to obtain Laetrile at exorbitant prices. No longer would the profiteers of bootlegged and inferior Laetrile made within the country flourish. An important battle in civil rights had been won. And yet the war raged on. The court order allowing Americans to bring Laetrile into the U. S. and even to have it mailed to them was signed by Judge Luther Bohanon on April 8, 1977. Quickly, lawyers for the F.D.A. asked Judge Bohanon to amend his court order so that it would stipulate that American cancer patients could obtain Laetrile only upon affidavits signed by their doctors that they were only a few’ weeks or a few months away from death. Judge Bohanon rejected the appeal. The F.D.A. then announced that it would continue to oppose Laetrile regardless of what happened in its favor in the courts of the land or the state legislatures of the country. Why? On Friday, February 11, 1977, The New York Times published the following editorial: **The Cancer Drug Dilemma’”’ ‘Should new anti-cancer drugs be tested under the same rigid constraints as all other drugs? That is the question, somewhat simplified, now being disputed by the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration. “It is an understandable confrontation between two arms of Government whose legal duties and objectives collide in ways never envisioned by lawmakers. The cancer agency is charged by Congress with finding cures as rapidly as possible. It is under heavy pressure and some criticism because progress so far has disappointed the high hopes raised by the ‘conquer cancer’ crusade of the early 1970’s. The F.D.A., by contrast, is obliged by law to insure both the safety and the

6

LAETRILE: Nutritional Control for Cancer

efficacy of pharmaceuticals permitted to reach the market. It responds to pressures and criticism from consumer groups and others who fear a repetition of the European thalidomide disaster of the early 1960’s, in which a sleeping pill produced thousands of malformed babies. “The cancer institute contends that the new drugs it wishes to test would be administered only to so-called terminal patients who are deemed certain to die unless their defenses against the disease can be enhanced. With such patitients, it is argued, greater risks are permissible -- indeed even desirable, since the new drugs may provide them with their only hope. “Until a year or so ago, the F.D.A. seemed to accept this argument, in part because the two agencies could work out problems informally. But then less compatible personalities came into office, including a new F.D.A. official who argued forcefully that the agency was being too permissive toward the cancer researchers. Further, cancer chemotherapy research is now moving toward combinations of drugs, combinations the F.D.A. feels pose special problems. So the F.D.A. has intervened formally and increasingly in the work of cancer researchers, and provoked irritation and anger at F.D.A. ‘busybodies.’ “The weakness of the F.D.A. case is the fact that terminal cancer patients are indeed special cases. We doubt that Congress had them clearly in mind in passing drug legislation. To put the matter bluntly, they have little or nothing to lose. A new drug or combination of drugs whose anti-cancer efficacy has been suggested by animal experimentation at least offers them hope -- and perhaps even benefit. Some state courts have recently recognized the special status of terminal cancer patients by permitting them to import Laetrile, a preparation the National Cancer Institute and the F.D.A. both regard as a useless quack nostrum. If judges are willing to go that far, it seems only sensible -- and humane —

to ask the F.D.A. to do so also.” But the F.D.A. has kept saying no. That April morning, after the California family had been

The Beginning of the End

a

cleared to bring Laetrile into the country, we all went out to the parking lot and shook hands good-bye. After the family drove off, McNaughton asked me: ‘‘What do you think?” I said: “I think it is the beginning of the end.” “It is,’ he said, “but the end is still a long way off.” That was true then. It is true now. But, now, the end is in sight. As monumental as the Bohanon court order was, other events of equal importance began to happen rapidly. By the end of 1977, more than a dozen U. S. state legislatures legalized Laetrile within their borders, allowing for the manufacure, sale, and use of Laetrile by doctors and patients. Amazingly, Laetrile became the hottest issue in terms of state’s rights since the Civil War. As state by state turned to the Laetrile matter, the Federal agencies and their adjuncts sent in their big guns who, in effect, threatened: “If you decriminalize Laetrile in this state, we will send in Federal agents to shut down the Laetrile production facilities and arrest anybody trafficking in Laetrile in any way whatsoever.” The legislatures took these as fighting words. The question became: If a state legislature cannot determine the laws applicable within its own borders, then what was the sense of having a state legislature in the first place? Time and again, the legislatures passed pro-Laetrile bills. Time and again, governors signed them into law. Then in November 1977, the California Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a lower court in the conviction of four people charged with conspiracy to sell Laetrile and one doctor, Dr. James Privatera, who was charged with using Laetrile in the treatment of his cancer patients. Reporting on this, The New York Times said: “The ruling yesterday could have statewide impact on the right of cancer victims to use Laetrile.” And this: “The Court of Appeals, with one dissent, held: ‘State law currently denies a cancer patient the exercise of his most fundamental rights. He has the choice of state-sanctioned

8

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

treatment by a doctor or no treatment from a doctor at all.’ “The court said that a patient can either get bureaucratically sanctioned treatment or none and that the law intrudes into the constitutionally protected area of privacy.” So it had come down to that. The issue was no longer a matter of whether or not Laetrile was effective against human cancer. The issue was whether or not American cancer victims had the right to turn to Laetrile after all other modalities of orthodox therapy had failed. And there was another question. If cancer patients could turn to Laetrile early enough, need there be any cancer deaths at all?

a

CHAPTER

2

The Seeds of Combat

Let’s try to clear the air. Everybody involved in the Laetrile controversy admits that they have a controversy on their hands. And what is the basis of the controversy? The Laetrilists, including over a thousand American physicians, claim that the substance acts against cancer in humans. The anti-Laetrilists claim that the substance cannot possibly act against cancer in humans because it does not act against cancer in mice. The Laetrilists include some of the most highly respected scientists in the world. The anti-Laetrilists are a behemoth comprised of the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration, plus numerous research centers across the country which look to these organizations for grants. But there is more to the controversy than the basic question of whether Laetrile works against human cancer or not. Briefly: 1. From the beginning, there have been personality conflicts between the people on both sides of the basic question. Sometimes the conflict was a matter of immaturity, sometimes it was a matter of naivete, sometimes it was a matter of power, sometimes it was a matter of money. That such human failings became part of what should have been solely a scientific debate has been regrettable. Precious time has been lost in resolving the basic question. Many people died because one side or the other has been wrong. 2. Scientifically, there has always been a canyon between the Laetrilists and the anti-Laetrilists. The anti-Laetrilists, sometimes called the Cancer Establishment, have maintained that cancer is a multiplicity of diseases - perhaps hundreds —

)

10

Laetrile: Nutritional Control for Cancer With Vitamin B-17

which all exhibit themselves in one way -- cancer. The Laetrilists, on the other hand, have maintained that cancer is a single disease with a multiplicity of exhibitions. From the

point of view of the Establishment, then,.it would seem highly unlikely that medical science will ever overcome cancer. The Laetrilists, however, at least provide a starting point and a direction to go. Although there have been references in the media to this important philosophical difference between the two sides, representatives of the two sides have never sat down face to face to talk it out. 3. Without question, the most powerful organization within the Establishment is the American Cancer Society. The influence the society has at the top of Federal agencies is staggering. One result of this is like a game of musical chairs. A top executive at the N. C. I. is suddenly a top executive at the cancer society — at twice the salary. A medical official at the cancer society is suddenly the president of a medical college. The medical industry is vast — pharmaceutical companies, research centers, publishing, universities, the field of public health, the doctors’ union itself. When the musical chairs begin, the American Cancer Society is usually naming the tune. The American Cancer Society is also influential in all areas of the media. A basic rule in journalism is that, when a reporter is confronted by a controversial subject, he should check with the experts. In this area, the generally recognized expert is the American Cancer Society, which has been

strongly opposed to Laetrile for twenty-five years without, as far as is known, spending a dime of its own money on research to support its position. At the same time, however, the journalist is supposed to check out the experts on the other side. This can get sticky. In the first place, as the Federal law now stands, any American physician using Laetrile on cancer patients can lose his hospital privileges, even his license. Although there are well over a thousand American doctors using Laetrile or prescribing Laetrile, very few of them would, understandably, risk their entire practice in the defense of one type of therapy for one type of disease, so they

The Seeds of Combat

1]

keep quiet about it. This serves greatly to the Establishment’s advantage, especially on important television talk shows or news programs. The Establishment can easily round up spokespeople who have big jobs and impressive backgrounds, whereas the spokespeople for Laetrile have usually been patients or volunteers or journalists or scientists whose degrees were not in medicine, so these people are quickly outmatched and easily dismissed as unqualified. The audience ends up uneasy and confused. It is a known fact that organizations within the Establishment have made the initial contact with a radio station or a television station, suggesting a discussion on Laetrile, and not only offering to provide its spokespeople but also suggesting who might be invited to speak for Laetrile, usually somebody not scientifically qualified. In the same area, the American Cancer Society influences the press with its annual, week-long seminars with science writers. The seminars are held in April, during the Society’s annual fund-raising drive, and they are usually held in some vacation spot — Miami, New Orleans, Las Vegas, Hollywood. The writers, who are mostly on newspapers or with the wire services or are free-lance, get practically all their expenses paid, with little or no costs to their publishers. Every day, the writers attend a meeting at which scientists, usually working on grants from the American Cancer Society, read progress reports on their work. Copies are provided for the writers, and facilities are available for them to send daily dispatches to their editors. After that, the writers are free to enjoy the entertainments of wherever they happen to be. There is nothing unethical about the seminars. Indeed, they result in excellent publicity for the American Cancer Society at the same time that well-meaning volunteers are knocking on doors all over the country trying to raise more money for the cancer society. If there is anything dubious about the project, it is that the American Cancer Society determines the agenda — who shall speak and about what. Not once has anybody been invited to speak for Laetrile. 4. Certainly the matter of pride-of-craft is involved in the Laetrile controversy. When a scientist has spent twenty-five

12

Laetrile: Nutritional Control for Cancer With Vitamin B-17

years of his career building up a defense for his concepts of the cause or treatment of cancer, he is going to put up a real fight when another scientist comes along and tells him he has been wrong all along. It would appear, then, that the big losers in the eventual conquest of cancer, whatever it is, will be the research scientists who have spent their lives and all the grants they could get to little avail. This would be hard for any man to take, whatever his field of endeavor. But there is something else to consider. The public. The cancer patients. The future cancer patients. This consideration seems to have been lost in the combat between the Establishment and the Laetrilists, despite the familiar chant by the Establishment that cancer victims are endangering their lives by turning to Laetrile instead of the conventional modalities. This is hot air. In 1976, the F.D.A. made a startling concession, in a front-page article of The New York Times, by declaring that Laetrile was “harmless but useless.’ It had taken the F.D.A. twenty-five years to admit this much, and to the Laetrilists it was like watching the F.D.A. raise a white flag. But a year later, when Laetrile was on every front-page and all over radio and television, the harmlessness of it was lost in the furor. One Establishment spokesman after another warned that Laetrile, containing cyanide, could be fatal when taken in large enough doses. So could just about anything else. Then a New York physician wrote in Letters-to-the-Editor in the New York Times that he knew of cancer patients who went on Laetrile and died. Cancer patients who undergo surgery die. Cancer patients who undergo radiation therapy die. Cancer patients who receive conventional chemotherapy die. Cancer patients who undergo any combination of these modalities die. Then tragedy struck. A ten-month-old girl in upstate New York, whose father had been taking Laetrile tablets for three years as a control for his cancer, somehow got hold of the supply, ate some, and died two days later. The father now says his daughter did not eat any Laetrile tablets but many other of the contents of the family medicine chest. Also,

The Seeds of Combat

13

Laetrile is not a cumulative pgison. Cynanide, if it kills, kills rapidly and does not take a couple of days as in the case of this child. The girl died as a result of excessive treatment by cyanide antidotes when she had not ingested any cyanide at all. The autopsy report indicated that the little girl had died of cyanide poisoning. The Establishment made fodder out of this. The subject came up on a broadcast of Tom Snyder’s “Tomorrow” program on NBC-TV, and two Establishment spokespeople used the tragedy as proof that Laetrile could be fatal. They even had a copy of the autopsy report to display, which showed either remarkable preparedness or speedy collusion since the report was only hours old and had not been released to the media as yet. Nevertheless, the feat won the day — the night, perhaps — for the Establishment. But the truth had not been told, which is characteristic of the Establishment. The two Laetrilists on the program knew the truth but did not want to go into it in order, as the saying goes, to protect the innocent. The truth was that there was an innocent involved, an older child who perhaps was still young enough not to understand what he had done, perhaps young enough not to be haunted by what he had done in later years. The truth must begin with a question: How could a ten-month-old child make her way into the bathroom, hoist herself up high enough to reach the medicine cabinet, open the cabinet, reach for the Laetrile, open the bottle and consume the substance? The truth was that the older child, deciding to play doctor, had no problems reaching the cabinet and then feeding the little girl samples of just about everything that was in the cabinet. A child could die from drinking too much of the cough medicine that-could be purchased in any drugstore. This child could have died from the combination of the drugs that were fed to her. This was never taken into consideration. Cyanide was involved. Laetrile contained cyanide. Laetrile was the killer. Even so, the girl’s father said he would continue to use Laetrile to control his cancer so that he could stay alive. Another area of assault by the Establishment has been that the proponents of Laetrile are profiteering. In other

14

= Laetrile: Nutritional Control for Cancer With Vitamin B-17

words, the people who developed Laetrile many years ago, the people who paid for research on it for many years, the companies which now manufacture Laetrile, the clinics which now accept Laetrile patients, the doctors who treat cancer patients with Laetrile or at least prescribe it for them are all in on this vast hoax to make a fast buck. If they were the decent sort, everybody would have done everything for free. Okay. But this becomes a two-way street. Any surgeon who operates on a cancer patient should do it for free. Any radiologist who uses his equipment on a cancer patient should do it for free. Any scientist who develops a new form of chemotherapy should refuse any money for it. Any pharmaceutical company that manufactures that substance should give it away free. Any hospital that accepts a cancer patient should not charge the patient for the use of the bed or any other required services or medications. The nurses for cancer patients should work free. Any doctor who treats a cancer patient in a hospital, in his office or in the patient’s home, especially during the lengthy death watch, should be happy to devote his time and talent free. No druggist should be paid for filling prescriptions for cancer patients, including the cost of the narcotics. It gets a little ridiculous. The fact remains that the most vocal Establishment critics of Laetrile derive a portion, if not all, of their sizeable incomes from the cancer business. This is not to suggest that every Establishment member involved in the cancer business is just out for the fast buck, but it does suggest that it is high time for the pot to stop calling the kettle black. The position of the Laetrilists is this: 1. The cancer cell is a normal body cell - the trophoblast cell — which has a vital role in the reproduction of life but which, as cancer, appears abnormally at the wrong time and in the wrong place. 2. Under normal conditions, the cell is kept under control by the pancreatic enzymes. 3. Even when the cell appears abnormally, it can be destroyed by the enzymes from the pancreas.

The Seeds of Combat

15

4. When the enzymes fail tp appear in adequate quantities or are not properly assimilated, the cell proliferates and demonstrates itself as cancer. 5. Cancer is, therefore, like pellagra, scurvy and diabetes, a deficiency, metabolic condition which, like these diseases, is responsive to metabolic medication. 6. Cancer elicits specific biological enzymes which allow Laetrile to be broken down at the site of the growth and perform its action of killing cancer cells. Stated that simply, the position of the Laetrilists becomes an easy target.

The Establishment could save a lot of time and money by finding somebody to write a scientific report that begins: “Cancer is not trophoblastic because...” And somebody could write another scientific report beginning: ‘“‘Laetrile cannot kill cancer cells because .. .” Since nobody within the Establishment -- or outside it, for that matter — seems willing to try to produce such documentation, let us begin at the beginning.

aR

eS

“ oeSe

ber a settee

tope

oa

Fa

; mad seit yin ie Pe) - 250i) ees Pe c +> Rbk

set aiid Misher

mmomisepe mutD totteomien’ imagnts

Melle Ce gey Ute Seiad ny vipa: aleamscotiessiad od alin orate Senta fa Sox rnnn seo eura he Adgi monranet adiensires apors nite '

a

? heir Te

SCUIRL

Ve. : aX

fase

“Js

. panelvttiod ee pee se photoaacul EAEOAT B sel ete ‘yeas eisai stiney cepnieBectpertele map toy SU

%

Te

te witha canaiitoenpeg haem apueltDR

i

we Yikes: ioatinsounb wae nS, = 6s pyro hematin sews cofmodesinyalite La ToS ere Ce ey y PA Sita

aeves enact

ere: : Fear og

nuit:el Mite en “

; ite ce

oA lees egelitiov hnaroh’ -o-saths

ut scisamo en Pal ewe esha ats Wali

aml alestize

ine

hp

fis :aii

aati‘fer-senitae: mi

ee

esehe husat tif

neh! oO unt,

set

a

j

ses rlcsitisttee gieashies foeat = wh, RTE

bya eo te ied ei eyed “ALi Wier Were ts she’ rencer (arte: Uti Mose wiggesting im Vesa oh =

te see Ma =

aw ie a wits)

GaADe! ne ronri

Hiro Cle)

an.

Gre kates relac Bema

ining

>

ph

12-S

a 3

Pen

bahia hat ynreli— ihe aopnalisesos Be thie

Oe

die

pretation Oe

my af are’=

cul

eae sah

igi Set

ms AEE

|ined na: indole Wyatt

peti ©, SY

Yr well iF bs ihtant contre :

ot

od rahi athe?ay:Ee

N

abe? Ahm deli re x Amnoreiahy, itgant de="a en Asas!vet the: bout ; Be Rye (ati

Uae aa ‘ede ‘ Tee

le

ent

nan

a

4

CHAPTER 3 Portrait of a Killer

What is cancer? The American Cancer Society, in business almost sixty years, has been given millions and millions of dollars by the American people to find the answer to that question and still is nowhere near it. In one of the society’s own publications, the question is put: “Why does cancer start?” The society’s answer: “No one knows.” That is not entirely true. Around the world there is a steadily increasing number of scientists who feel they know what cancer is and how it starts. And they feel the answer has been around a long time, ignored because it was so far ahead of its time. It is this: In 1902, Dr. John Beard, a professor of embryology at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, published an article in Lancet, the prestigious British science journal, on what was, in a way, the pharmacology of cancer, but much more. Beard’s article was, basically, on the trophoblast cell, identified in 1857 and named in 1876, the word being derived from the Greek words for “nourishment” and “‘tissue.” By the turn of the century, medical science generally agreed that the trophoblast cell had a role to play in the reproduction of life. It evidently ate a niche in the uterine wall where the fertilized egg could nestle to derive nourishment from the mother’s bloodstream. With time, the trophoblasts formed a layer of tissue encircling the young fetus. Later on, the afterbirth contains a layer of trophoblast cells. But, at the time, nobody knew where the trophoblast cell came from or why it was never found outside of pregnancy. John Beard provided the answer. Beard did his animal work with fish eggs. Fish eggs are fertilized outside the body,

17

18

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

and thus Beard could study them at various stages of their development. Then he applied his observations to human morphology, and he came up with a staggering idea. First, this: There was a time when the best brains in medical science believed that when a woman became pregnant the new life inside her immediately resembled a fully developed human being. In other words, the embryo looked like a tiny doll that grew and grew until it was ejected in the childbearing experience. The best brains, mind you. With the invention of the microscope and the fantastic progress in science, this concept was corrected. It was established that the reproduction of human life is literally the re-enactment of human evolution, beginning with the occasion, billions of years ago, when the one-celled creatures living in the seas acquired the faculty of reproducing themselves identically by dividing themselves into two of the same creatures. In humans, the new creature is more vegetable-like than animal-like at one point. At another point, it is more fish-like than mammallike. If a new human grew as fast in the first nine months after birth as he does in the nine months following conception, he would be as tall as the Empire State Building before he was a year old. The experience of coming into being asa human is a marvelous and fascinating adventure, and even the best brains in medical science today don’t know everything about it. And this: The human body, like all plants and animals, is composed of cells — tiny, individual, living organisms. Each human cell contains one nucleus (with the exception of red blood cells, which are not true cells but corpuscles). Within the nucleus are granules called chromatins; outside the nucleus is a tiny object called an aster. Cells reproduce themselves by dividing in half. When this process begins, the aster is the first to divide, and each of the new asters moves to opposite sides of the cell. Meanwhile, the chromatic granules form into tiny filaments and then into thickened cylinders, called chromosomes. Chromosomes contain genes, which carry hereditary characteristics. The number of chromosomes in a ripening

Portrait of a Killer

19

cell varies in different animals and plants. In humans, there are 46. As the division process ¢ontinues, the sac-like nucleus decomposes and the freed chromosomes line up in the middle of the cell. The two asters, poised opposite each other, then exert a pulling force upon the chromosomes. The chromosomes split lengthwise, with each set then moving toward the aster nearest it. While this is happening, the cell itself is dividing like a half-filled balloon that can be pinched into two spearate spheres. The two spheres split from each other, forming two new cells. Each daughter cell now has its own aster and 46 chromosomes. A nucleus sac envelopes the chromosomes and they break down into granules again. Thus where there was one cell there are now two, each equipped to go through the division process upon maturity. This process of cell division is called mitosis, and it is occurring in the body all the time. There is, however, a body cell that can divide itself in a different way. This is the germ cell, which is the first cell to appear after fertilization and which can divide through a process called meiosis. In meiosis, the 46 chromosomes of the parent cell line up as usual, but they do not split lengthwise. Instead, as the cell division progresses, 23 chromosomes move toward one aster and 23 move toward the other. Thus the new formed cells contain half the normal number of chromosomes. Some definitions to remember: A cell containing 46 chromosomes is described as being diploid. A cell containing 23 chromosomes is described as being haploid. Totipotent means “able to reproduce the whole.” For example, certain worms can be cut up and each segment will grow into a new worm: thus totipotent. The only human body cell that is totipotent is the germ cell. Thus a’germ cell is described as diploid totipotent. Multipotent means “able to do many things.” Cells which do not give rise to a complete animal but may form more than one kind of cell are multipotent. There are various

20

Laetrile: Nutritional Control for Cancer

kinds, and they are primarily engaged in tissue repair. Both the sperm and the egg are called gametes, from the word gamete, meaning wife, and gametes, meaning husband. Having only 23 chromosomes, gametes are described as haploid gametogenous. When a diploid totipotent cell divides by mitosis, it produces two daughter cells identical to itself. However, when a diploid totipotent cell divides by meiosis, it produces two haploid gametogenous cells. This was what John Beard’s research showed him: When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the two haploid cells blend to form a new organism. This is called a zygote, from the Greek word zygon, meaning yolk. Having received 23 chromosomes from each gamete, the zygote has 46 and is therefore diploid. It is also totipotent, in that it can produce a “whole” — a human being. And, as a diploid totipotent cell, it can divide either by mitosis or meiosis. Importantly, although the zygote is the result of fertilization, it is not the embryo — the actual new being; the embryo is still to appear. Beard observed that within a few hours after fertilization the zygote began to undergo division, dividing by mitosis into two daughter cells similar to itself. A few hours later, these two cells divided into four daughter cells. But somewhere around this point, the pattern changed. A substance Beard could not identify — but which later turned out to be estrogen — was now causing some of the diploid cells to divide by meiosis into haploid cells. Beard examined these haploids under the microscope and recognized them as trophoblasts. This was a discovery of staggering importance. At the time, many scientists believed that the trophoblasts were produced by the mother’s uterus at pregnancy. Now Beard established that the trophoblasts were the first differentiated cell — different from their parent cell — to appear in the life cycle. And the trophoblasts were essential to life itself. At a given time, Beard saw, the cluster of daughter cells and trophoblasts migrated from the Fallopian tube into the uterus where it chose an amenable spot in the uterine wall; and then the trophoblasts began their invasive, erosive, corrosive cancerous faculty of ‘“‘eating’”’ a niche in the uterus

Portrait of a Killer

21

where the future embryo could absorb nourishment from the mother’s bloodstream. In other words, if the trophoblasts didn’t do their job, the daughter cells would literally die of starvation and there would be no new life. In a sense, then, trophoblasts were as vital to new life as the act of fertilization itself. Beard saw something else. He saw that when the daughter cells numbered 512, one of them was somehow chosen to be the definitive embryo. If two were chosen, there would be twins; three, triplets. The rest of the daughter cells seemed to stand by, still multiplying but awaiting their next role in the reproduction of life. When the embryo matured to the point of acquiring gonads, the gender already determined, these stand-by daughter cells entered the body, heading for the gonads, there to become the ova of the future female or the sperm of the future male. But around twenty percent — perhaps as much as thirty percent -- of the daughter cells missed their destination and settled in other parts of the body. These days, medicine refers to these scattered cells as “displaced life cells,’ and a lot of people in medicine still wonder how come the cells are displaced. And John Beard saw this: Around the fifty-sixth day of pregnancy, when the umbilical cord was formed and became the channel of nourishment for the fetus, the trophoblasts started dying off. Not needed for nourishment anymore, their job was finished. Beard established that just about the same time the maternal pancreas started producing unusual amounts of enzymes known generally as trypsins. Beard reasoned that these enzymes were killing off the trophoblasts, and he was able to see this for himself by applying the enzymes to living trophoblast tissue. There was another clue. Upon pregnancy, two substances appear in increasing quantity in the mother’s blood and urine. One is estrogen, which has the faculty of speeding up the rate of cell division. The other is human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). When the umbilical cord is formed, the estrogen rate keeps increasing, but the HCG rate drops sharply, virtually disappearing. However, if the HCG factor contin-

22

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

ues to rise after this point, there is every likelihood that the mother will develop chorionepithelioma, a virulent uterine cancer, and both mother and child will be dead in a few weeks. It seemed to John Beard that there was a relationship between trophoblasts and HCG, that the cells either produced the substance or elicited it. It also seemed to Beard that if there was a relationship between HCG and chorinepithelioma, then there should also be a relationship between the cancer cells and trophoblasts. On the basis of this, Beard suggested that since pancreatic enzymes normally killed trophoblasts, dramatically reducing the HCG content, then these same pancreatic enzymes should kill cancer cells. This, oversimplified, was what Beard wrote in his paper for Lancet in 1902. Much of what he wrote was sheer theory since, at his point in time, little of the scientific equipment

and procedures to prove that he was right had been developed; and it was probably for this reason that the paper, when it was published, received little attention from the scientific world. When one of Beard’s colleagues read the paper, a paper that suggested that the cell which, as the trophoblast, was essential to the reproduction of life was the same cell which, as cancer, could destroy life, he said: ‘‘God help us if you are

right.” Beard said: ‘‘God help us if I am wrong.” Perhaps it was an act of God that Beard’s article in Lancet went almost unnoticed when it was published. Perhaps it was also an act of God that the book Beard wrote on the same subject went unnoticed when he published it about ten years later. Back then, it would have been easy for Beard’s peers to punch holes into what was mostly theory, and Beard’s entire concept of cancer would have been lost. But Winston Churchill once wrote about “the inevitability of progress,” and it was progress that gave Beard’s theory the substance of fact. Many years after Beard published his findings, his work

came to the attention of four California scientists and served as a blueprint for their own cancer research. The result of their research: Laetrile.

é

CHAPTER 4 The Mystery That Nature Solved

Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Sr. was born in San Luis Obispo, California, in 1877. In 1899, he earned a licentiate in pharmacy. In those days, a licentiate in pharmacy was accepted as a year study in medical school. Krebs entered the College of Physicians and Surgeons in San Francisco, and was graduated in 1903. His first assignment was as County Physician and Health Officer in Mono County, California, in 1904. An epidemic of smallpox was raging among the Indians; it was spreading to the whites, and the cattle in the big meadows were dying of anthrax. It took Krebs, the only doctor in the county, two years to conquer the epidemic. In April 1906, Krebs moved to San Francisco and went into general practice. He was there when the great earthquake struck, and he lost everything. To get a fresh start, he decided to move to Carson City, Nevada. It was there that he met and married Ida May Green. They had four children, two boys and two girls, and they adopted an Indian girl. The first boy was named after his father. In 1920, Krebs moved his family back to San Francisco, settling in a majestic Queen Anne mansion on South Van Ness, a building that had survived the earthquake and which has since been designated a landmark by a California historical socicty. Dr. Krebs never lost his love of pharmacology. Wherever he worked — in Mono County, in San Francisco, in Carson City, back again in San Francisco - he always had a laboratory where could pursue his own research into the medical challenges that faced him. Like most doctors, the greatest challenge facing him was cancer. Through his readings and research, Dr. Krebs began to believe more and more that enzymes were somehow involved in cancer. The existence of

23

24

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

enzymes was established in 1765 when an Italian scientist observed that gastric juices dissolved chunks of meat. Over the next century, other scientists identified hundreds of enzymes, each fulfilling a catalytic role in specific body func— tions, sometimes acting alone, often acting in conjunction with other enzymes. Later on, around 1930, scientists found ways to crystalize enzymes, and out of this they determined that all enzymes were protein in nature. Dr. Krebs remembered some work he had done on glucoproteins in college, and he wondered now if there might be some relationship between the enzyme proteins and the cancer protein. With a

great deal of excitement, he turned his research toward that prospect, and it was in this atmosphere that his first son grew up. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., was eight years old when his family moved to San Francisco. He was entered into the St. John’s Lutheran School, a few blocks down the street from his home. He was a remarkable student. Raised in a home where science, philosophy, history and art were regular tabletalk, he was an exceptionally informed and well-read youngster, with a precocity which was not always appreciated by his teachers. At an early age, his attention was drawn to Robert C. Ingersoll, the Illinois lawyer whose skeptical writings in the late 1800’s had earned him the title of ‘““The Great Agnostic.” Before reaching his teens, Krebs took particular delight in standing up in his religion classes in St. John’s and quoting whole pages of Ingersoll from memory, challenging his teachers to prove Ingersoll wrong. Although this did not add to Kreb’s popularity with the faculty of St. John’s, it did serve two important ends. First, it helped him develop what turned out to be in manhood a fantastic memory — which he would need in the work he pursued. Second, it equipped him with the analytical attitude that the most direct way of determining whether an idea was correct was to try to prove that it was wrong. In later years, this precept provided the turning point of his life. From St. John’s, Krebs went on to Lowell High School of Science. He was already certain about his future: He would

The Mystery That Nature Solved

25

follow his father’s footsteps into medicine.

There were now

three other children in the family - - Byron, Ida and Olive; and although Dr. Krebs had a successful practice, young Ernst felt it was about time for him to cease being a financial burden and become self-supporting. He, therefore, started a community newspaper, for which he collected all the news, did all the writing and sold all the ads. When time arrived for him to begin his medical studies, he already had a good part of the necessary tuition in the bank. Like his father, his main interest in medicine was cancer. It was understandable that any doctor would be frustrated by the cancer puzzle. The disease was first reported in medical writings 3500 years ago when Egyptian scientists described growths they had observed in the vagina. The Egyptians called the growths phagedena (compare with the Greek word phagein, to eat). From what they could observe, the Egyptians believed that the disease~spread by “eating” its way through the body. Actually, this observation was remarkably accurate, considering the primitive science techniques of the time, and yet it was true that little more had been learned about the nature of cancer between the writing of the Egyptian report in 1500 B.C. and the nights when Dr. Krebs returned home to Van Ness Avenue saddened by another cancer death. In the 4th century B.C., Hippocrates, who is known as the Father of Medicine, gave the disease its name. He observed that the common factor in his patients was a swelling - - a tumor. Examining these tumors in autopsies, he saw that they had extensions spreading out from the main growth, making them look considerably like crabs. The Greek word for crab was karkinos; the Latin word for crab was cancer. (And interestingly, the German word for crab is krebs.) Hip-

pocrates studied many such tumors and classified them according to where they occurred and what they looked like, and the names he gave them are still widely used. About 500 years later, in 150 A.D., Galen, another Greek physician, made a further study of body swellings, and he divided them into three groups - tumors according to nature,

26

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

tumors exceeding nature, and tumors contrary to nature. For example, he considered the development of female breasts at puberty to be tumors according to nature. The bony calluses which developed to unite the ends of broken bones were, he felt, tumors exceeding nature. And cancer tumors - - because they could not be explained - - were contrary to nature. Time proved Galen wrong, in that he oversimplified the nature of what he called tumors, but nevertheless, there are some scientists at work today who are still pursuing their research on the basis that cancer is contrary to nature.

Tremendous progress in research was made possible between the 13th and 17th centuries with the development of the lens and the microscope. Scientists were now able to take a closer look at the human body. They saw, first, that the body was composed of cells, and they were able to establish that the swellings occurred in cancer because the cells in the affected area greatly increased in number. But they didn’t know why this should happen where it did, why it should happen at all or why certain cells in the swellings were different from the cells in the host tissue. It was Louis Pasteur who, in the middle 1800’s, established that living organisms could only evolve from other living organisms. In other words, there was no such thing as spontaneous generation; all living things had to have parents - - at least one parent. A little later, Franz Von Leydid proved that body cells could only evolve from other body cells. Scientists asked: What about those strange cells in cancer tumors that aren’t found anywhere else in the body? Where do they come from? Who are their parents? Nobody knew. The treatment of cancer was likewise at a standstill. Until a mere hundred years ago, serious internal surgery of any kind was performed as a last resort. The great danger of infection and the horrible pain which conscious patients suffered discouraged all but the most desperate doctor. The first important forward step came with the development of anesthesia in 1847. Now, at least, the patient could sleep through his operation. Then Pasteur proved that infections

The Mystery That Nature Solved

27

were caused by bacteria that floated in the air and could even be on the doctor’s hands and surgical instruments. This opened a whole new field of science and led to thoroughly sterilized operating techniques. With that, surgery was able to take gigantic strides. In cancer cases, doctors could now remove the fatal tumors. The trouble was that the removal of the tumor -.- sometimes the whole affected organ -- did not seem to stop the disease. It was only a matter of time until the patient developed new cancer growths in other parts of his body. Sometimes these scattered growths - - called metastases - - were sO numerous that surgery was futile. At the turn of the century, radiation was introduced as a cancer treatment when it was discovered that the deeply penetrating rays had the ability to destroy cancer cells. But the rays also killed healthy cells, and so the treatment could do as much harm as good. And again it was found that even if radiation seemed to destroy cancer in one area the disease would often show up in another. The basic question remained unanswered: What is cancer? Did it start from one kind of cell? Could it start from many different kinds of cells? Were all cells potentially cancerous? What sent cells off on the fatal road to cancer? In the 1920’s, there were several theories on what caused cancer to occur. Some scientists believed cancer resulted from a chronic irritation. For example, it had been observed that a high frequency of cancer of the groin appeared in textile workers whose jobs required them to straddle a fast rotating metal shaft which usually came in contact with their bodies and caused slow-healing abrasions. Other scientists felt the disease was brought on by cancer-causing substances called carcinogens. These scientists pointed to the fact that chimney sweepers and coal miners appeared to suffer a high rate of lung cancer, probably caused by inhaling dust particles that irritated their lung tissues. When it was noted that tobacco smokers experienced a higher rate of lung cancers than non-smokers, these same scientists insisted that there must be a carcinogen in burning tobacco that the smokers inhaled. Another explanation that gained wide support was the virus theory. Ever since Pasteur, scientists conceded that the

28

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

air was full of microbes that could cause all kinds of diseases. Why not cancer? This theory earned additional support when it was discovered that injecting certain viruses into laboratory animals could indeed induce cancers. But there was also the theory that radiation caused cancer, as was observed among people who worked with X-ray equipment. And when it was also observed that certain families suffered a high incidence of cancer, there was the theory that the disease was hereditary. All these theories were correct to a certain degree, but they fell short of their goal. They contributed nothing to the understanding of what the cancer cell actually was. Also, there were inconsistencies in the theories. Why didn’t all textile workers at the rotating shafts develop cancer? Why didn’t all chimney sweepers and coal miners develop cancer? Why didn’t all smokers develop cancer? Why didn’t all laboratory animals receiving a specific virus injection develop cancer? Out of the exceptions to the theories a new idea arose: cancer was not one disease but several diseases - - perhaps hundreds - - which all demonstrated themselves in the same way. Thus, it appeared, there could never be a single-shot treatment which might cure cancer or at least bring it under control. This idea became widely accepted and probably did more than all the other theories to send scientists off on research detours. John Beard’s identification of the cancer cell was simple. He pointed out that the first differentiated cell to appear in the life cycle was the trophoblast cell. He pointed out that the trophoblast cell played a vital role in the reproduction of life by providing a nourishment channel from the mother to the child. He pointed out that around the 56th day of pregnancy the pancreas sent out the enzymes which killed the trophoblasts because they were no longer needed. Should the enzymes fail to appear, the trophoblasts continue reproducing unabatedly, and the mother and child are quickly dead from a most virulent cancer. Now, bear in mind that the zygote initiates a process of cell division that produces

The Mystery That Nature Solved

29

512 daughter cells, one of which becomes the definite embryo in a single birth while the rest stand by to become ova or sperm in the gonads of the new human and that as much as a third of them miss their destination and settle in other parts of the body. These displaced life cells are alive, and a body cell of any type must eventually divide or die. These displaced life cells can divide by mitosis, producing two of themselves, or they can divide by meiosis, producing haploids, with trophoblasts as a result. The agent that accelerates cell division is estrogen, usually for the purpose of making tissue repairs. Regardless of the carcinogen, if displaced life cells are in the area when estrogen goes to work, they will divide by meiosis, producing trophoblasts at the wrong time and in the wrong place. HCG appears in the body. The pancreas sends out the enzymes to kill the trophoblasts. If the enzymes do not arrive or do not arrive in sufficient quantities, the trophoblasts pursue their invasive, erosive and corrosive behavior in the surrounding tissue. Cancer. About the time Dr. Krebs began his studies of the possible relationship between enzyme protein and cancer protein, two other scientists in California were thinking along the same lines. They were Dr. Leon Lewis, a physician, and Dr. Charles Gurchot, a biochemist. The two men met while they were both on the staff of the Sonoma County Home, a public health facility, and when they discovered their mutual interest in cancer research they became close friends. Both of them were convinced that enzymes were somehow a factor in cancer. Also, both of them were about to change jobs. Dr. Lewis wanted to go into private practice. Dr. Gurchot was about to become a professor of biochemistry at the University of California.

The new approach Dr. Krebs used on his research was based on an experience he had while in college. That time, he had used the enzyme emulsion to fracture the glucositic linkages of glucoproteins that were vegetable glucosides. He wondered now if emulsion could be used to fracture animal

30

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

glucosides, which the cancer cell, being a living body cell, would be. If so, the chemical interreaction should bring about the death of the cancer cell. Dr. Krebs extracted emulsion from the kernels of bitter almonds, a rich source. When he began injecting the substance into cancerous laboratory animals, he was amazed by the results. The cancer growths were definitely undergoing change, becoming smaller, and in a matter of days. But more of the animals were dying than he had anticipated, and not from cancer. He knew that the almond kernels also contained amygdalin, a cyanide-bearing substance, and he wondered if the cyanide was killing off the animals. When he made his next batch of the material, he eliminated as much of the amygdalin as he could. This time, the deaths among the animals decreased dramatically, but so did the response of the tumors to the material. Dr. Krebs realized that he faced years of research, re-structuring the molecule in order to determine what it was that had given him his early successes. These things happened in the mid-1930’s, at the time Dr. Leon Lewis was ready to go into private practice. He decided that it would be a good idea to buy the practice of an older doctor who was about to go into retirement, and he asked around in medical circles for leads. By now, Dr. Krebs, approaching his sixties, had mentioned to some medical friends that he was thinking of retiring in order to devote himself full-time to cancer research. In fact, he was already sharing his office facilities with a younger doctor, Dr. Stuhler. Word of his intention reached Dr. Lewis, who came to call on him. Faced with the unexpected decision about retirement, Dr. Krebs couldn’t make it. He loved medicine. Many of his patients had become close friends. He simply did not feel ready to give up completely just yet, and he said so. “T can understand,” Lewis said. “Thanks for your time.” “Thanks for yours,” said Krebs. “If I change my mind,

Pll let you know.” “All right,” Lewis said, getting ready to leave. Then:“‘By the way, I hear you’re doing some cancer research.”

The Mystery That Nature Solved

31

“Yes, il ame “In what area?” “Treatment.” “What are you using?” “I'd rather not say. I’m not satisfied with the results yet.” Lewis said: ‘‘A friend and I are doing some research. We’re studying enzymes.” Krebs was surprised. “Enzymes?” “Yes!” Krebs admitted: ‘‘That’s what I’m using.” Lewis’ eyes widened. “You are? Maybe the three of us should get together to compare notes.” “That’s a good idea.” A few days later, Dr. Krebs, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Gurchot met for dinner at the Krebs’ home. It was a meeting that resulted in a collaboration that lasted for many years - - years of struggling, years of failures, years of triumphs. Meanwhile, Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. began his medical studies by entering the Hahnemann Medical School in Philadelphia. He gradually realized that although his mind was set on a career in medicine his heart wasn’t. He found scientific research much more interesting, much more fascinating, and, as a result, his grades in his first year in medical school were hardly outstanding. There were some doubts in Krebs and at Hahnemann as to whether he should continue. Young Krebs knew that leaving medical school would be a disappointment to his father, so he offered to do his first year over again. This time, things went better, but not by much. Summers, he took courses at the University of California in order to build up extra credits, and he chose subjects that were more in the area of research than medicine itself. On his visits home, Krebs met Dr. Lewis and Dr. Gurchot, and often he sat in on conferences with them and_his father in their discussions of enzymes and cancer. At times he wondered if the three men ever thought about anything else. But

the time had come for him to do some serious thinking of his own. He had completed his sophomore year at Hahnemann, and he knew in his heart that he had no desire to go on toa

32

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

medical degree. He wanted to go into research. He felt he could spend his student years to greater advantage by studying subjects more pertinent to research. With some trepidation, he told his father his decision. Dr. Krebs was delighted. With

that, Krebs left Hahnemann

(he was later accused

of

being a medical school drop-out) and for the next few years he took specialized courses at universities in the East and Midwest, building up his credits. Later, he was given a bachelor’s degree in bacteriology at the University of Illinois. But his student years were not over - - they would never be. In 1938, he was studying biochemistry at the University of California under Dr. Gurchot - - and still hearing a lot about enzymes. Young Dr. Stuhler, who shared offices with Dr. Krebs, had a hobby of collecting old medical books. The walls of his office suite were lined with them. Krebs Jr. enjoyed browsing in the library. One day he came upon a title he had not noticed before and he flipped through the pages. Then he took the book to Dr. Stuhler and asked: ‘‘May I borrow this?” Stuhler glanced at the book. “Sure. You interested in that?” “Yes,” said Krebs, “but I’ve got a friend who can’t think of anything else.” “Help yourself, then.” “Will you sell it to me?” The doctor thought about it. “I don’t even remember what I paid for it. If you want it, it’s yours.” “Thanks.” Krebs drove out to the university, went to Gurchot’s office, placed the book on the doctor’s desk, and, almost teasingly, said: “Here, add this to your collection.” Gurchot picked up the book and glanced at it. Its title: “The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis,” written by Dr. John Beard, published in London by Chatto & Windus in 1911. Gurchot asked: “What’s this?” “I don’t know,” said Krebs. “I just found it. I thought

The Mystery That Nature Solved

33

you'd like a look at it.” “All right, Ill look at it,’ Gurchot said. Krebs hurried off to a class. When the two of them met again a couple of days later, Gurchot was carrying the Beard book, and he asked Krebs: ‘Have you read this?” “No, I haven’t.” “J think you should. And so should your father,” Gurchot said. “Beard has some fascinating ideas, and I would like to discuss them with the two of you.” And when they encountered each other again in a couple of days, Gurchot asked: ‘‘Have you read John Beard?” Krebs began to smile a little. “Yes, I have. My father is reading him now.” “What do you think?” Krebs tried to keep a straight face. He said: ‘‘Well, Beard has a lot of interesting ideas, but they’re all theory. Some of them are almost silly.” Gurchot pointed out: ‘“‘Maybe Beard’s ideas were theory - - perhaps even silly - - twenty-five years ago, but that doesn’t mean that they still are. A lot of progress has been made since 1911. Why don’t you check Beard out?” Krebs lost his smile. “What do you mean?” “Well,” Gurchot said, “you’re the one who’s always saying that the best way to determine whether an idea is right is to prove that it is wrong. So prove that Beard is right or wrong. Go to the literature. Read everything you can find on trophoblast cells and cancer cells and enzymes. See if you can make correlations. You might be doing a very important piece of research.” Krebs looked away and mused: ‘Oh, I’d love to sink my teeth into that one.”’ Then he said: ‘“‘T’ll have to talk to my father about it.” That evening, Krebs called Gurchot at home and told him that his father had encouraged him to go ahead with the research. Gurchot said: ‘Good. That ought to keep you busy for the rest of the summer.” It was to keep him busy for the rest of his life.

>

uw Qo

Se

1S ere

‘ow (lc) 34

Di

itr

Fe xt s0s th Seadoo

a

= stiie: Prtuar fe Seeypini

7 Sars. os=

pea :

au Y

cling

om

vet oy °

au os.) ! aie

13

my a

7 kes uk

CL elcoh bemtetetraae e

a

ihA Matt Sines ra

vieapres

-

meant i ans Sheen! Jolt

tthe ie ieee hie st.ge7's SUG ee dines ante alt oe neve wt ~~ ib Sully army tests a sige

ied eae ran

bn or pro

Sue Inseddeo

are Wh darts ela

wow Fino git 2e2! sonia

; Mnsotirat! ob Sota G otic

ine jodi "Se?0

in a‘ado ot i) or oy sie!

tah taubite thenallw sriaratsd ot yw jan! okt volt a4 10S

Gees ondtaing

«2

accord ef ti Inet -

katy rsa ache snivetesal (Laieth oot Adee na eer 2 pz tuyere tent istinbug

lie an

Yioe 6 arin’ ad Fis ane BOIS

SP

cy

enolase,

eae Eg eur te

inet

Tea

ass:

OE

radepioom Gvobe't HeyIcha

“e S

ee

os oeiy—, ca rt eR dae pacar nian suite ate na geancis d g meant e h Jt penis, "1 ieedtiemlaDUO: rut Osan oe Sci Whee bereSonesce

neta aM ATEve Vitaaefheg Roepe heehee +

ta s Fit! A Windset The

te

oe a

1 ned BLDAK oieny dot” Keane” dee ee "t‘rea a anes. rah bic ociatsi tidLeaps re Pane

‘

at

ae 8

a

.

é

CHAPTER 5 The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

The unique value of the scientific literature is that it is intended to save scientists years of work and great sums of money. The bulk of the literature is progress reports. In effect, the scientist say: ‘This is what I am working on, this is what I have done so far, this is what I have found out, and this is what I am thinking of doing next. Does anybody have any ideas or suggestions?” It often happens that several scientists, unknown to each other, are working on the same problem. In theory, once a scientist has published, the other scientists then cooperate with him by comparing notes and ideas, the attitude being that true scientists don’t care who gets the credit for a scientific achievement, just so that the achievement is achieved. That is the theory. Scientific history is full of shocking examples of occasions when events didn’t go that way at all. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian physician of a century ago, tried to convince his fellow doctors that they themselves were transmitting the fatal childbirth fever by not washing their hands after examining each patient. So much ridicule was heaped upon him that he was driven to insanity and to suicide. A few years later, British scientists proved that Semmelweis was right, so the Hungarians put up a statue of him. In France, at about the same time, Louis Pasteur was being attacked so fiercely by his peers that he finally gave up the fight and simply announced: “Gentlemen, I live in a world

you do not understand and to which you have no entry.” Today, nobody remembers the names of Pasteur’s critics, but Pasteur’s name is part of every language on the planet. In our own day, when the Salk polio vaccine was ready for

35

36

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

field tests, it was impossible to find a cooperative medical society in the selected counties. The March of Dimes, which funded Salk’s work, had to import doctors from elsewhere. And when the final report of the tests was ready for publication, there were no takers in the scientific field. The report was handed out at a press conference in Michigan. Jonas Salk should have won a Nobel Prize for his achievement, but he didn’t. Why? Because he had done his work outside the confines of the scientific clubhouse. The fact that John Beard’s publications, in Lancet and in his book, failed to stir much interest in the scientific community when they came out may have been due, to some extent, to the clubhouse; but Beard himself was such a giant in the scientific world that the oversight was probably due to the fact that he was so far ahead of his time. At the turn of the century, knowledge about enzymes was still sparse, and there is still a lot of mystery about them. And also at the turn of the century, vitamins were still substances of the future. Amazingly, the enzymes and vitamins were in people’s bodies all along, and the lesson that can be drawn from this is that at no point in time can the scientists say that they now know everything there is to know about the human body. And yet this is the stand that some of today’s clubhouse leaders have taken on Laetrile. For Krebs Jr., checking out John Beard became a high adventure that was to last many years. He knew that the answers he sought were in the medical literature; finding them would demand the greatest detective work. It also meant travel to medical libraries all over the world. To read some of the literature, Krebs had to teach himself German, Russian, and French. Then he began to work his way backwards through scientific history, decade after decade, spending years at it. Proceeding on the accepted axiom that two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, Krebs correlated all the characteristics he could find of the trophoblast cell and the cancer cell; and when he found a characteristic that was identical in both, he added it to a list he was compiling. Sometimes he found a characteristic that was only

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

37

identical in both cells but exclusive to them, and he added this to the list. Before long, his list numbered into the dozens, then into the scores, eventually into the hundreds. And what was fascinating was that papers on trophoblast cells were written by scientists who didn’t have cancer cells in mind at all and papers written on cancer cells were written by

scientists who didn’t have trophoblasts in mind at all. To have such unrelated research dovetail into what John Beard had been saying all along was both exciting and triumphant. They were a good team, these three -- Dr. Krebs, Dr. Gurchot, young Krebs. The older men brought knowledge, experience and sound judgment to the work; young Krebs brought intense curiosity, inexhaustible energy, and an encyclopedic memory. The three spent countless hours in discussion and, sometimes, heated debate, each of them determined to establish the trophoblastic nature of cancer and to find a way to destroy the malignant cells without the companion danger of destroying somatic cells, as various chemotherapeutic agents in use at the time were doing, resulting in serious side effects. After the three of them were satisfied that the pancreatic enzymes were not potent enough against advanced cancers, their attention focused more and more on the amygdalin in Dr. Krebs’ apricot preparation. As the doctor purified the preparation again and again, the time came when amygdalin appeared to be the only active ingredient in it, and yet Dr. Krebs couldn’t believe that amygdalin alone had the power to act against cancer. There had to be something else involved. They looked into it. The word “amygdalin” comes from the Greek amygdale, meaning almond. Bitter almonds are a rich source of amygdalin, but the substance exists in various amounts in at least 1,200 foodstuffs, and we all eat some of it practically every day. Amygdalin got a bad name when it was established in 1837 that when it is broken down chemically it releases two molecules of sugar, one molecule of benzaldehyde, and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide. Amygdalin, then, contains cyanide. In itself, this was hardly news. The ancient Egyp-

38

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

tians and Greeks knew that if you fed someone a concoction of crushed bitter almonds and water death would most likely occur.

On the other hand, the Romans and the Chinese for

centuries used a similar concoction medicinally on a wide variety of minor diseases. It was in 1845 that the scientific literature contained the first report on the use of amygdalin in cancer. A Russian professor claimed that using amygdalin apparently brought about controls in two cases of widelyspread cancers, one for three years and the other for eleven. Why this work was not followed up is explained by some of today’s clubhouse members by the probability that the Russian later recanted. In San Francisco, the two Krebs and Gurchot knew, of course, about the hydrogen cyanide in amygdalin. This was the main reason why they were reluctant to use it in humans, at least in anything more than the smallest quantities. And yet they observed that the purer the preparation was made the larger the dosage could be in animals without any side effects. What they couldn’t figure out was why. Dr. Krebs and Gurchot went into their laboratories. Young Krebs headed for the libraries. And this is what they found out: 1..The cyanide which people normally eat in a wide variety of foods is detoxified in the body by a substance called rhodanese, which is produced by the somatic cells.

2. Cancer cells are deficient completely so.

in rhodanese,

almost

3. Cancer cells therefore have practically no defense against cyanide. 4. Cancer cells secrete a substance called glycosidase in abundant amounts. 5. Glycosidase has the faculty to trigger off amygdalin, releasing the cyanide at the site of the can-

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

39

cer growth.

6.

The defenseless cancer cells die. Should any of the cyanide escape into the surrounding somatic tissue, the rhodanese detoxifies it.

Neat. Now the challenge was to see if it was true. The test was easy enough. The risk was that it might be too true. One day, Krebs Jr. put a quantity of the apricot preparation into a test tube. He added a quantity of glycosidase. He waited a few moments to give the two substances a chance to work on each other. Then he took a sniff. Cyanide. Triumphant, he nevertheless realized that even the small amount of cyanide he had sniffed could be harmful. He hurried out of the laboratory to the alley behind the building and began running up and down the block at top speed, gulping oxygen. And his one thought was: “It works! It works!” But there was another test to be done. Young Krebs gave himself an injection of the preparation. In itself, this could have been a dangerous thing to do, but Krebs had such confidence in the work which he, his father, and Gurchot had done that he injected himself without trepidation. Had there been one mistake anywhere along the line, Krebs would have been dead very quickly. But he remained very much alive. Several hours later, he tested his blood and his urine and found precisely the substances he expected to find after his body chemistry acted upon the preparation. Now they were ready to face their peers. First, they needed a name for the material. It was amygdalin, yes, and yet it was something more. Tests showed it to be a laevo-rotatory glycosidic or glycuronic nitrile. This meant, among other things, that when light was beamed through the material upon a prism the light broke to the left and that it was a cyanogen compound. They called it Laetrile. Other new names began to appear.

40

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Although the Krebs laboratory in San Francisco had served well for the research that had been done, it did not have the facilities to produce Laetrile in quantity. Looking around for a pharmaceutical company that could do the job, the Krebs chose the Spicer Gerhart Company in Pasadena, California. Heading the company was Edward H. Spicer, an Englishman, who, with his partner, had built up a thriving and highly respected pharmaceutical company in England and in Europe between the two world wars. During World War II, the company’s facilities in both England and on the Continent were destroyed in bombings. After the war, his partner in retirement, Spicer decided to move the company to the U.S., and he settled in Pasadena, where his brother lived. He kept the name Spicer Gerhart for the company because it had become so well known abroad, and it soon became equally well known here. In 1950, Spicer and Krebs Jr. met for the first time. Spicer was intrigued by John Beard’s trophoblastic identification of the cancer cell, and he was impressed by the work the two Krebs and Gurchot had done. Yes, Spicer could produce Laetrile in his laboratories, but first he wanted a look at the San Francisco laboratory. On Spicer’s visit to San Francisco, Dr. Krebs asked him: “Mr. Spicer, do you know any doctors in the Los Angeles area who would be interested in trying Laetrile?” “I think I do, yes,” Spicer said. ‘In fact, I have already talked to a few of my medical friends about it.” “Good,” said Krebs. “I don’t expect to stir much interest around here.” “Really? Why not?” “I’m not a member of the county society.” “Oh? How did that come about?” “Some years ago,” Dr. Krebs said, “I was doing some experiments with a different material, and the county tried to make me stop. So I quit the society, I quit the state society and, of course, the A.M.A. I don’t like being pushed around, Mr. Spicer.”

“I’m sure nobody does, Doctor.”

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

41

But the pushing had hardly begun. Among the doctors to whom Spicer had talked about Laetrile was Arthur T. Harris. Harris was a South African; he had gone through medical school at the University of Edinburgh, and he had studied embryology under John Beard. He was well-acquainted with Beard’s trophoblastic identification of the cancer cell. When he learned that the Krebs’ Laetrile was an outgrowth of the Beard work, he became intensely interested. In those days, when a doctor wanted to use a new and unapproved medication on his patients, he simply signed an F.D.A. form to that effect, and then the manufacturer sent a copy of it on to Washington. Harris readily signed the form and Spicer forwarded it to the F.D.A. Harris had been thinking of going home to South Africa. He had come to the U.S. in 1928, gradually worked his way westward across the country, and eventually settled in Los Angeles area where he developed a thriving practice among the British community there, including movie stars and famous writers. Now in his upper fifties, he had acquired a comfortable wealth, and he felt the time had come to take his young American wife and two small children to South Africa where he was considering volunteering his medical services to missionaries. The sudden entrance of Laetrile into Harris’ life changed all that. Harris’ first Laetrile patient was a divorcee of thirty-six who had a cancer of the cervix which had been established by biopsy (examination by microscope of a small specimen of the growth). Because she was planning to remarry and hoped to have children, she had refused treatment by surgery or radiation. Learning about Laetrile, she requested it from Dr. Harris. In December 195:1, the drug was administered locally into the ulcerated cervix and intramuscularly in 100-milligram doses. Dr. Krebs Sr. himself supervised the early treatment. Within a month, the woman had her first normal menstruation in several months, and examination showed that the previously eroded cervix was smoothly healed. A second biopsy was done, and it was negative. The patient’s personal physician refused to accept this biopsy and ordered a third

42

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

done under his own direction, and which was examined by his own pathologist. It was negative. Ten years later, Harris was able to report that the woman was still alive and free of any apparent evidence of cancer. In his first sixteen months of using Laetrile for cancer, Harris treated eighty-two patients, and he reported: “Patients still alive and comfortable - - 24. ‘Patients clinically free of cancer -- 3. “Only temporary help --55. “Out of the whole series of eighty-two cases, all were terminal cases except three. The terminal cases were cancer cases that had been subject to one or more operations, to one or more courses of radiation therapy - - X-ray treatment, radium therapy, cobalt bomb or radioactive therapy. All were doomed to die before they came to us; many of these are still comfortable and their cancers are ‘clinically improved.’ It is more than encouraging that so many incurables are not only alive but comfortable and active.” Now the horizons broadened. Arthur Harris was a competent writer. He was a member of the Hollywood Writers Club. One of his closest friends was James Hilton, who wrote, among other bestsellers, Lost Horizon. Occasionally Harris wrote on medical subjects; but he preferred articles on travel and on personal experiences of a religious nature. Harris was a devout man. As well as Harris could write, he disliked the monotony of re-writing, of editing himself, and so if something he wrote didn’t sell on the first time out, he put it aside. He tried his hand at several novels, all of them quite good but in need of a heavy blue pencil. He paid to have one them published, an unnecessary expense if he’d had the patience to tread water editorially. He was the sort of man who had to keep forging ahead. Tall, lean, handsome, soft-spoken, he had a dynamo purring in him. In 1951, I was an editor of Coronet Magazine in New York City. Part of my job was to go through a portion of the unsolicited articles that arrived everyday, hoping to find one we could purchase or could repair into purchasable shape. One

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

43

day there came upon my desk, an article by Arthur Trevenning Harris, M.D. Magazines like having an M.D. by-line in an issue: it provides a certain prestige. But as I began to read the article, I saw that it had nothing to do with any area of science. It was about a personal experience Harris had had recently on a visit to his home in Africa. The writing had a nice touch, the subject was offbeat, and there was a religious tone that was within the Coronet horizon. I saw a few flaws which editing could repair. Instead of sending Harris instructions on how to make them, I offered to make them myself, He agreed. The article was subsesubject to his approval. quently purchased. Over the next year, two or three more Harris articles were purchased by Coronet through the same kind of author-editor collaboration. Letters between Harris and me became more personal, as sometimes happens in the y publishing business. In the summer of 1952, Coronet published an article on the use of the cobalt bomb in cancer therapy. I received a letter from Harris, saying: ‘“Too bad you people wasted that space on the cobalt bomb article. We are working on something out here that is going to be the answer to cancer if there will ever be one.” Intrigued, I buckslipped the letter to the editorial director, who returned it with the instructions, “Check this out.’ I wrote Harris and asked for more information. When nothing came in three weeks, I sent Harris a telegram. A few days later, the Harris material arrived. The material clearly was not intended for publication. Instead of names, Harris used initials: like E.T.K.,Sr., E.T. K., Jr., and C. G. The material contained a few paragraphs on the trophoblast-cancer cell relationship. There was a brief rationale on Laetrile. To me the material made no sense at all. I sent it on to the editorial director, who sent it on to the magazine medical director. A few days later, the editorial director told me: ‘“‘I have been advised not to touch this subject with a ten-foot pole.” The pushing around was starting in California. Besides working at Coronet, I was also doing free-lance editing and writing for other publishers, among them a small,

44

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

family-owned company that specialized in Catholic material. One day during this period, I received a call from the senior partner of the company, asking me to come to the office for a meeting. I expected another assignment. On entering the man’s office I saw that also present were the man’s two brothers, both partners in the firm, and his son and a nephew, both being groomed to take over eventually. On the man’s desk was a stack of Coronets. As the meeting began, the man asked me: ‘What do you know about the cobalt bomb treatment?” “I didn’t handle the article,” I said. “‘ One of the other editors did. It came from one of our regular writers in Canada. All I know is what’s in the magazine.” “Is the treatment any good?”’ “The article indicates that it shows promise.” “Would you recommend it?” “I’m not qualified to do that.” The man sank back in his chair. ‘My wife has cancer,” he said. “Her doctor says there’s nothing more he can do for her. We’ve been thinking of sending her to Canada for the cobalt treatment.” “Does your doctor know?” “Ves,”

“What does he say?” “He doesn’t think it will do any good.” *1’m sorry to hear that.” The man looked up at the ceiling and said: “Oh, God, I wish there was something we could use.” I remembered. I said: “On my desk I have an article by a doctor in California. We’ve bought a few articles from him, but not on medical subjects. Anyway, he wrote me that our cobalt article was a waste of space, and that they are working on something out there that looks like the answer to cancer. I asked him for more information, and he sent me this article. It doesn’t make any sense to me, but I’m not a doctor.” The publisher asked: ‘‘What are they using?” “Laetrile.”’ “What’s that?”

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

45

“A drug, I| suppose. They inject it. They get it from apricot kernels.” “Apricot kernels? Your’re kidding.” “That’s what the man says.” “Are you going to publish the article?” “No. Our medical advisor told us not to touch it with a ten-foot pole.” “Then it can’t be much good.” “A doctor who is using it says yes and a doctor who hasn’t used it says no.” The publisher asked: ‘“‘Can you get me a copy of that article?¥ “Yessir.” “Will it be wall right if I show it to my wife’s doctor?” “I guess so.’ “Can you be there if he has any questions?” “If you want.” The doctor’s name was C.R. O’Crowley. He was a urologist, widely respected, with a thriving practice in the Newark, New Jersery area. At this point, in his sixties, he was thinking of retiring to an island he owned off the New England coast. In recent years, he had acquired a coterie of younger doctors, men in their thirties and forties, who looked to him for guidance in their work and in their lives. The doctors took Wednesdays off. When the weather allowed, they would gather early at the Essex County Country Club for a round of golf, followed by lunch, followed by an afternoon of cards, followed by the arrival of their wives for cocktails and dinner. A few days after I met with the Catholic publishers, I presented myself to their New York office and was taken by the senior partner and his son to the Essex County Country Club, arriving just as Dr. O’Crowley and his coterie had gathered in the bar for drinks before lunch. The doctor took the three of us into a small conference room. I handed the doctor Harris’ article. As the doctor read, he kept shaking his head and commenting: ‘‘No, this can’t be right. No, I’m sure it can’t work this way.” On and on. Then he came upon

46

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

something that sent his eyebrows up. Although Harris had used initials for all the principals involved, there was one name that he did use. Spicer Gerhart. Dr. O’Crowley said: “I know this company. I’ve used some of their products. They seem to be legitimate enough. I wonder how they got mixed up in this? Let’s find out.” He picked up a telephone and put through a call to Edward H. Spicer in California. Because of the time difference, Spicer had just arrived at his office. The two men talked for about a half hour, the doctor asking many technical questions, Spicer giving the answers. Then the doctor said: “Can

you send me some of the material? The F.D.A. forms? Yes, I'll sign them. Thank you.” He hung up. He looked at the others in the room. “I have to sign some government forms before I can use the stuff.”’ He looked away and shook his head, then said: ‘“‘I can’t believe this. We’ll see.” We went to lunch. This happened in August 1952. At Labor Day, I left Coronet to do free-lance editing and writing full time. Although the magazine wasn’t interested in Laetrile, I was. Every Wednesday, the father-and-son publishers and I went over to the country club to meet with O’Crowley and his group. Week after week, the excitement grew. Dr. O’Crowley had received the supply of Laetrile about ten days after his conversation with Spicer. He had a patient in the hospital, a man in his seventies, who had terminal cancer of the bladder. At the time, the recommended Laetrile dosage was 250 milligrams every third day. Dr. O’Crowley gave the man five or six injections, and the only change he observed was that the patient seemed less dependent of the pain-relieving drugs. The doctor told the patient’s wife that she might as well take the man home because there was nothing more that could be done for him in the hospital. Two weeks later, the woman called O’Crowley and asked him: “Doctor, when do you want me to kiss you?” O’Crowley laughed. “What have I done to deserve an offer like that?” “Well,” she said, “I don’t know what you did for my hus-

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

47

band, but he is greatly improved. The bleeding has stopped, the pain is gone, he’s eating lik¢ a horse, and he wants to go back to work.” The doctor let that sink in. Then he said: “Can you bring him to see me? I want to take a look.” An appointment was made. O’Crowley called two or three of the young doctors and asked them to be there. When the patient was on the examination table, O’Crowley inserted a viewing instrument through the man’s penis and into the bladder. O’Crowley took a look. He looked for a long time. Then he asked one of the other doctors to look. In a few minutes, all the doctors present looked. The patient was thanked and his wife took him home. O’Crowley asked: “Did you see what I saw?” “Sloughs,” said a doctor. “Definite sloughs,” said another. “Deep sloughs,” said another. x O’Crowley shook his head. “I don’t believe this. Let’s get some more Laetrile.” After that, the Wednesday lunches became almost giddy with delight as the doctors reported on what was happening to their Laetrile patients. One doctor reported: ‘Yesterday morning I had a bladder cancer operation. I’d had the patient on Laetrile for a couple of weeks, and I couldn’t see much change, so I decided to go in. You know how messy these jobs can be - - all that bleeding, so I had everybody standing by, ready for the flood. Well, I had no trouble opening up. Then I picked up the instrument to start the gouging. I pressed against the bladder wall, just at the growth, and the nugget of cancer popped out just like a walnut. No bleeding. You should have heard the amazement.” And he laughed. Gradually the reports at the country club began to circulate into the area’s medical community. Doctors who weren’t part of the O’Crowley group showed up to listen, to ask questions, to ponder. A newcomer at one luncheon was an officer of the county medical society; and as he sat through the meeting, his face was clouded with disbelief and

48

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

suspicion. At some point, this doctor telephoned his counterpart in the Los Angeles medical society, and at the next luncheon he told the group: “You guys better be careful with this stuff. I talked toa friend of mine in California the other day, and he said the county society is really raising hell about Laetrile. So is the state. He said that if this keeps going, a lot of doctors using Laetrile will be losing their license. If the A.M.A. finds out about what’s going on around here, you guys can be in the same mess. If you’ve got any sense, you’ll drop it.” “Not with my results,’ O’Crowley said. O’Crowley did two things. First, he made contact with some professional friends in California to learn what he could about the controversy. He was told yes, there was a controversy, a bitter controversy, but nobody seemed to know why. Then O’Crowley sent an ampule of Laetrile to Dr. Alexander O. Gettler, toxicologist in the office of the Chief Medical Examiner for the City of New York, simply asking for an analysis of the substance and its chemical action. Gettler replied: “Before starting the analysis, I thought it would save time to get the structure of the compound. I wrote to the SpicerGerhart Company and they gave me the following formula.” (Here followed a graph of the Laetrile structure.) Gettler went on:

“T then proceeded to check up this formula. There is no free Hydrocyanic acid or free cyanide present. It is firmly bound in the molecule. “I then hydrolyzed [broke up] the compound by boiling with HCL under a reflex. On testing for the components produced, I found Hydrocyanic acid, glucuronic acid and an aglycon moiety which seemed to be benzaldehyde. My analysis checked the formula given. “The compound can also be hydrolyzed by the enzyme B glucuronidase found in malignant tissue, thus liberating HCN at the site of the tumor. “J hope this will answer your inquiry.” It sure did. O’Crowley hadn’t even mentioned cancer. Dr.

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

49

Gettler had come up with that on his own. It was like getting an answer to a prayer that Hadn’t been said yet. Dr. O’Crowley passed all this information on to the Catholic publisher. The publisher called me. After the good news about Dr. Gettler, the publisher said: ‘‘Glenn, we have got to find out what all the noise is about in California. Ill pay your expenses if you will go out there and make an investigation.” I said: “If you want a scientific investigation, I’m not qualified. You’d better send Dr. Gettler.”’ “I’m not interested in the science,” the publisher said, “especially after Dr. Gettler. If it’s science, the whole thing could have been settled by now. Something else is going on out there. Go out there and see everybody on both sides, find out everything you can, and then let me know how you feel about it.” A few days later, I had breakfast one morning with Arthur Harris at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. We spent the morning discussing Beardianism, Laetrile and the controversy. Harris felt that Laetrile was being condemned without getting a fair hearing. We had lunch with the Hollywood Writers Club. That afternoon, we drove around the Los Angeles area, calling on some of Harris’ Laetrile patients. All the patients said that they were feeling better, they were free of pain, their appetites had returned, and they were putting on weight. Harris had photographs that indicated regressions in some patients who had cancer in the mouth, throat and on the breasts. Next morning, I interviewed Edward H. Spicer at his home in Pasadena. Like Harris, Spicer gave me all the time I wanted and answered all my questions about the work and the controversy. It appeared, from the remarks of both Harris and Spicer, that the two most vocal opponents of Laetrile were Dr. Ian MacDonald, a Los Angeles surgeon, and Dr. Henry L. Garland, a San Francisco radiologist. Most of the anti-Laetrile articles in the California newspapers quoted one of these men or the other or both. MacDonald was chairman of the Cancer

50

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Advisory Council, an adjunct of the California Medical Society, and Garland was secretary. As such, they were the chief

spokesmen for the Cancer Establishment in California. That afternoon, I called on a urologist who was an old friend of Dr. O’Crowley’s. The man was retired, but he kept his office in downtown Los Angeles as a kind of retreat for the times when he wanted to some uninterrupted reading. He told me: ”I doubt if I can be much help to you. I’ve been retired for over two years, and I’m not in the mainstream of things anymore. Of course, I’ve heard some of the fellows arguing about Laetrile over at the club, but I haven’t paid much attention.” I asked: ‘“‘Do you know what the basis of the arguments is?” “No, I don’t.” “Have you any idea?” The man shrugged. ‘Well, one doctor who is always arguing about Laetrile just got himself a three-story building over on Wilshire Boulevard that he is paying for out of cancer surgery. I’ve heard that another loudmouth is thinking of buying a cobalt bomb. That’s a little premature, since we don’t know if cobalt therapy is really any good. Do you know what the trade-in value is on a cobalt bomb?” “No, sir.” ‘Ten cents on the dollar.” “Then it’s money?” “T’d say so,” the doctor said, ‘‘at least to some extent. You can never rule out money no matter what the controversy is.” I was able to set up a meeting with Dr. MacDonald for the next day. When I entered MacDonald’s office on Wilshire Boulevard, I noticed that a second man was in the room. MacDonald made the cursory introductions: the second man, a younger man, was also a doctor. Then MacDonald said: ‘Mr. Kittler, will you show us some identification so that we know you are who you say you are?” I took out my wallet and presented my New York driver’s license, New York press card and New York voter’s

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

=|

card. MacDonald glanced at them and returned them. Then he said: “Would you mind opening your jacket?” I took off my jacket to show that I was not bugged. The conversation began. I said: “Doctor, the main reason I am out here is to find the reason for the controversy we’ve been hearing about in the East.” “It’s simple,” said MacDonald. ‘These people are trying to dump a worthless cancer drug onto the market, and we’re not going to let them do it.” I asked: “Wouldn’t it be even simpler to have a controlled test done and let the results speak for themselves?” MacDonald shook his head. “That would be a waste of time. Young Fields out at the university wants to do a controlled test, but I think I have enough influence to prevent that.”” He looked at the young doctor. “Don’t you agree?” The young man nodded. “Yes, I do.” “Why prevent it?” I said. “I’d think that a controlled test would be the fastest way to get rid of these people.” “Oh, we'll get rid of them,” MacDonald said. I asked: “These people say that the trophoblast cell and the cancer cell are one and the same. Is that correct?” “It’s nonsense,” said MacDonald. ‘Any sophomore medical student can tell you that.” “Well, I’ve talked to some of these people,” I said, “and they claim that they are getting results with Laetrile.” ‘“They’d have to prove that to me,” said MacDonald. “The only results they’re getting is that they are making money. We’ve had some Laetrile analyzed. It’s just amygdalin, and there’s nothing in amygdalin to make it of any use against cancer. Now, you can buy amygdalin for seventeen cents a gram from any pharmaceutical company in the country. We’ve done it. And these people are charging patients five dollars for an injection of a quarter of a gram. That’s their results.” MacDonald glanced at his watch. I asked a few more questions, then decided that I wasn’t getting anywhere. I thanked Dr. MacDonald for his time and left. At his hotel, I called

§2

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Dr. Harris’ office but was told that the doctor was out making house calls and was not expected back. I called Spicer and gave him the gist of my conversation with Dr. MacDonald. Spicer said: “That is typical MacDonald. ‘Laetrile doesn’t work because it can’t work.’ We’ve heard it all before.” “Ts Laetrile amygdalin?” ‘‘Amygdalin is a member of the Laetrile family.” “What about the price?” Spicer laughed. ‘‘We’ve heard that from MacDonald before, too, and we’ve checked it out. There is only one company in the United States producing amygdalin. Their price is seventeen dollars a gram.” “MacDonald said he got it for seventeen cents.” “He’s got the decimal point in the wrong place,” said Spicer. “Besides, the company has assured us that they haven’t sold any amygdalin for years and haven’t even received any inquiries about it.” “Then MacDonald was lying?” “Judge for yourself.” “Mr. Spicer,” I said, a little frustrated, “why don’t you people take up MacDonald’s challenge and give him the proof he needs?” “We are,” said Spicer. “Tonight.” “What’s going to happen tonight?” “Tonight Dr. MacDonald and Arthur Harris are having a meeting at a hospital in Santa Monica where MacDonald will examine some of Arthur’s Laetrile patients and read their records.” “Can I be there?” “I’m afraid not. Both sides have agreed that there will be no press coverage of the meeting.”

“Why didn’t Dr. Harris at least mention this to “He didn’t want to be in a position of having to say you in case you asked to be there. He felt you might he was trying to cover up something, in the event that Donald’s decisions are negative.”

“MacDonald didn’t mention the meeting either.”

me?” no to think Mac-

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

53

“For once he did something right.” “Do you think Dr. Harris will discuss the meeting with me tomorrow?” “I’m sure he will. I expect him to call me this evening at home. [ll tell him that you know about the meeting and want the details from him. I’m sure he’ll call you as soon as he finishes with his patients in the hospital.” “Okay. Dll wait for his call.”

I didn’t have to wait for Harris’ call to find out about the meeting. Next morning, when I went out for breakfast, I bought the local papers, and there on the front page of one of them was a detailed account of the Santa Monica meeting. Arthur Harris’ presence was barely acknowledged. The article was all MacDonald. According to him, there was no evidence that Laetrile had done anything for any of Harris’ patients, that either the patients never had cancer in the first place or they had benefited belatedly from other modalities. The article was devastating. The Harris call came, and he asked: ‘“‘Have you seen the papers?” I said: ‘Yes. Somebody sure did a hatchet job on you. I thought the press wasn’t supposed to be there.” “It wasn’t. But at the last moment MacDonald walked in with this reporter and insisted that the man be allowed to observe the examinations or he wouldn’t even look at my patients.” ‘Did you protest?” “Certainly. I pointed out to MacDonald that banning the press from the meeting had been his idea, but he just brushed that aside.” “Don’t you have any reporters around here who are friendly to you?” “Not in the city. There is a paper out in the valley that gives me fair treatment, but I felt I couldn’t mention the meeting to them anymore than I could mention it to you.” “Can we get together? I’d like to hear the details.” “Yes. Ill pick you up in front of the hotel in fifteen minutes. I’d better get out to my office. I’m sure the phone is

54

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

ringing like mad.” The phone kept ringing like mad--friends and patients calling to sympathize. At one point during our frequently interrupted conversation, Harris said to me: “Maybe MacDonald can examine a cancer patient and his records in two or three minutes, but I don’t know any other doctor who can.” ‘*He gave you the rush act?” “Like the building was in flames.” “Did you point this out to him?” “Yes. He said he knew what he was doing.” At another point, Harris said: ‘‘When surgery helps one of MacDonald’s patients, he says he did it. When Laetrile helps one of my patients, he says they never had cancer in the first place.” I asked: “Could you have proven that all your patients last night really had cancer?” “Of course. In fact, two of the patients last night had been MacDonald’s patients several months ago. He had them both scheduled for surgery, but they refused it and came to me for Laetrile.” “Did you let him know this?” “Yes. He didn’t remember them. He’s going to check his files and let me know.” “Do you think he’ll do that?” “If he does, I'll let you know. But I’m not going to hold my breath until I hear from him, and I recommend that you don’t hold yours until you hear from me.” And at another point I asked: ‘“‘What do you think is ahead?” “For me or for Laetrile?” “Both.” “Well, as for me,” Harris said, “I probably will be losing my hospital privileges soon. This morning a nurse told me that she had orders not to assist me with my Laetrile patients. Ominous. Next I'll be told that I can’t use Laetrile in the hospital. But I’ll continue to use Laetrile on patients outside the hospital, and for this I'll be told that I can’t

The Miracle of the Lowly Apricot

55

treat my hospitalized patients with anything except my good wishes.” “Sounds grim.” “Oh, it probably will get worse,” Harris said. ‘Now, as for Laetrile, if MacDonald can’t knock it out by himself soon enough, he will do everything he can to have it banned in California, perhaps the whole country. What happens after that will depend on the people leading the battle. This is going to take a long time and it will require a lot of guts. I just hope I’m around to be part of it.” When I got back to my hotel, something troubled me. If Dr. MacDonald had really insisted that the press be barred from the Santa Monica meeting, it certainly was strange that he should arrive with a reporter in tow. Actually, the reporter could have learned about the meeting in any number of ways, perhaps even from a patient, and then gone out to Santa Monica on his own. On the other hand, had MacDonald been involved in any way at all, then the whole thing was a set-up and the outcome was a forgone conclusion. I called the newspaper, made contact with the reporter, and identified myself as a New York writer in to check out the prospects of doing a Laetrile story. The reporter said: ‘You can forget about it. I’ve been covering this story for a year, and you can take my word for it that there is nothing to Laetrile. It doesn’t work at all.” “It would seem so,” I conceded, ‘judging from your article. You did a great job.” “Thank you.” “Tell me, did you go out to the. meeting with Dr. MacDonald?” “No, I didn’t.” “Were any other reporters there? I didn’t see any Gunes in the other papers.” “I didn’t see anybody.” “Then you got yourself a scoop. Good for you. That’s what I miss in magazine work. You have to work so far in advance that there’s little chance of ever scooping anybody.” “Were you a newspaperman?”

56

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

“Oh, yes.”’ Then I detoured the conversation into newspaper experiences, the reporter contributing an experience or two of his own. The reporter said: ‘‘Listen, a few minutes ago I told you a little white lie.” “You did? What was it?” “You asked me if I had gone out to Santa Monica with MacDonald.” ray Coe

“And I said I didn’t.” “Yes; I remember.” “Well, that was the white lie. I didn’t go out to the hospital with Dr. MacDonald. I drove my own car. But Dr. MacDonald arranged for me to be there. We met in front of the place and walked in together so that Dr. Harris couldn’t try to keep me out.” /Didhe?s “He made some noise about an agreement, but I didn’t know anything about that. Dr. MacDonald said that I stay or he wouldn’t go on with the meeting.” “You’re lucky to have such a good contact in Dr. MacDonald.” “Right. Well, P’ve been working with him on this story for about a year, and Dr. MacDonald knows he can trust

me.” “Well, okay. Thanks for the chat and the advice. Pll head back to New York.” I was on the next plane to San Francisco.

I guess

CHAPTER

6

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

In San Francisco, I made a point of first calling on Dr. Garland, the radiologist, who was secretary of the Cancer Advisory Board. After Coronet had published its article on the cobalt bomb, the magazine received letters from many doctors, usually radiologists, complaining that the magazine had raised false hopes in cancer patients by printing an article that was, however cautiously, optimistic about the future of the treatment. So much mail came in that a form letter had to be prepared, saying, in effect: ‘‘Thank you for your interest in our recent article on cobalt therapy. Your opinions will be taken into consideration should we decide to publish further on this subject.” It was a polite brush-off. When I entered Garland’s office one morning, I saw a familiar piece of stationery on the doctor’s desk. Coronet’s. A glance was enough to identify the form letter. So Garland had sent in a complaint. The meeting with Garland was brief and unproductive, the doctor repeating much of what Dr. MacDonald had said: there was nothing in Laetrile to make it effective against cancer, so why bother with a controlled test? I then spent several hours with Dr. Krebs Sr. The doctor was then in his seventies, a short, slender man, alert and spunky. At one point, he said: “I have been through all this

before. I didn’t let them stop me then and I’m not going to let them stop me now. If they’re so sure of themselves, why are they balking at a controlled test?” Next I spent two days with Krebs Jr. going over the science, the rationale and the controversy. Krebs was a stocky man, heavily jowled, with a slow, studied speech pattern.

oF

58

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

When he answered questions on the science and rationale, he did so by quoting the published scientific reports of others, naming the authors, the journal, the volume and issue, the page, and then the applicable quotation verbatim. His fantastic memory would have served Krebs well in any discussion with his peers, but he couldn’t get his peers to talk to him. At one point I said: ‘MacDonald says there is no reason why Laetrile should work against cancer. What’s your answer to that?” Krebs said: ‘I could prove to MacDonald that it works on a blackboard, if I could ever get him in front of one. I don’t need animals, I don’t need patients, I don’t need a controlled test - - just the blackboard.” I said: “MacDonald says his people have analyzed Laetrile. Do you know where they got the Laetrile?” “I know exactly where they got it,’ Krebs said. “One day Garland was over here, and as I was showing him around the lab I saw him help himself to two ampules of Laetrile which he took from a box on a shelf.” “Did you mention this to him?” “No.”

“Why not?” “When I was a kid, I once got caught stealing cookies from my mother’s cookie jar. I knew how Garland would have felt.” “Would you have given him some Laetrile if he’d asked for ite: “TI would have given him all he wanted. The only way those people are going to find out that Laetrile works is to use it with their.own patients.” “Do you know what happened to those two ampules?” “Yes. They sent one ampule to the A.M.A. laboratories for analysis and they shot the second one into a mouse.” I asked: ‘Can you explain why you are running into such fierce opposition?” “No, I can’t. I wish I could,” said Krebs. ‘‘At times I feel that I must be paying off some Karmic debt.”

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

59

I decided to stay in California to write my report to the Catholic publisher, just in case I would have to check back with anybody for clarification of my notes. In summary, I wrote:

“As you know, I am not qualified to evaluate this project in terms of the Beardian science, the Laetrile rationale or the efficacy of Laetrile in human cancers. The doctors in New Jersey will have to determine these things for themselves. But if I am to make an evaluation of the controversy on the basis of the men I have met on both sides, I would tell the Jersey doctors to keep up the good work.” The Jersey doctors did keep up their work and they did continue to hold their Wednesday discussions over lunch. With time, however, some of the newcomers, men who were not part of Dr. O’Crowley’s coterie, became increasingly vocal in their criticisms of what was going on. Their arguments were not scientific but political. There was going to be hell to pay, they warned, unless the O’Crowley group dropped Laetrile. Dr. O’Crowley was not impressed. He kept on with his work. Asked once if he would make a general statement about his experience with Laetrile, he said: “‘If Icould draw a line at a starting point for all of my Laetrile patients, I would have to say that my results with all of them have been

above the line.” Then a bomb burst in California. On March 23, 1953, at a press conference in Los Angeles, Dr. Ian MacDonald announced that the California Cancer Commission, of which he was the leader, had made a study of forty-four Laetrile cases and had found Laetrile to be totally worthless. The study was published quickly in California Medicine, the journal of the California Medical Society. Neither in the journal nor in reprints of the study was there a by-line, but it was later disclosed that MacDonald and Garland had written the report. Also, there was no indication in the report of where the study had been made, where the patients had come from, how the Laetrile had been acquired, what dosages had been used, and who administered it.

60

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Arthur Harris was convinced that the cases cited had been taken from the case histories he had presented to MacDonald at their Santa Monica meeting. In other words, the report was not based on anybody’s personal and first-hand experience. What was particularly damning was a list of the present status of the forty-four patients. Many of them had died. To see the word ‘“‘dead”’ over and over again down the list was like reading a report from a battlefront. This could not have been unintentional. Issued as a report by the Commission, the study presumably had the approval of the nine members of the Commission - - five surgeons, two radiologists, one pathologist and one professor of medicine. Not one of these men had any personal experience with Laetrile. Also, the report said that the efforts of a biochemist to break down Laetrile to see if any cyanide was released had failed, and this was supposed to mean that the Laetrilists’ claim of cyogenic action against cancer cells was false. What was ignored (and what was not uncovered for another ten years) was the fact that the Laetrile ampule which Garland had stolen from the Krebs laboratory and sent to the A.M.A. had been broken down with the release of cyanide, a fact that had been reported to MacDonald and Garland two months before the announcement of the study of the forty-four cases. So the whole thing was phony. But the damage had been done. Any doctors in California who held borderline attitudes about Laetrile now backed off as from the plague. Other doctors who had been using Laetrile occasionally on terminal cases - - and then surreptitiously - - didn’t feel safe anymore and dropped it. In New Jersey, the Wednesday luncheons were ending in shouts. Across the country, any doctor who heard about Laetrile and, quite reasonably, made inquiries through medical channels received a copy of the MacDonald-Garland report. It might come from the California Medical Society, from the Los Angeles County Medical Society, from the American Medical Association, and from any office of the American Cancer Society. Any doctor who, after reading the report, would go on and use Laetrile was either a dreamer or a

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

61

daredevil. Arthur Harris remained steadfast. Despite the threats and the condemnations, he continued to use Laetrile. As he had expected, he was soon forbidden to use Laetrile on hospitalized patients. This meant that he had to make house calls for the patients who were not mobile enough to come to his office; and, in spacious Southern California, this meant driving many miles every day, cutting into the time Harris would have given to the rest of his practice. In the summer of 1953, Harris reported: “Of the total number of cases treated with Laetrile (82) 43 have been pay-patients and 39 free-patients. Of the 43 paypatients, many have paid only a part of their bills and much money has been written off on my books. Besides that, I have over $5,000 outstanding on my books at this time, and probably some 80% of this will never be collected. The net result is the fact that I am today mortgaged to the hilt. I have an unsecured loan at the Bank of America for $2,000 and unpaid current debts totalling over $4,000, whereas just 13 months ago I had not a mortgage or loan against me and had money in the bank. Apart from the inestimable satisfaction of trying to help my fellowman in evaluating this new and disputed drug Laetrile, I am in bad shape and on the verge of complete insolvency.” And Dr. O’Crowley remained steadfast. ‘Perhaps,’ he said at a Wednesday luncheon, “we should bring in somebody from California to talk to us about all this. I doubt if Harris can be impartial enough. What about Spicer?” Because Spicer disliked flying, he chose to make the fiveday train trip across the country. One Wednesday morning, I picked up Spicer at his New York hotel and took him to the Catholic publisher’s office. The publisher, his son, Spicer and I then drove over to the Essex County Country Club. Spicer’s visit was a total success. An Englishman of the Old School, he had intelligence, charm, wit, confidence, plus all the information the doctors wanted to hear. Spicer had spent his professional life among science researchers, so he

62

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

knew the language, but he also knew that he was talking to doctors who were, for the most part, general practitioners, so he avoided heady technicalities and limited himself to cautious enthusiasm. The meeting lasted four hours, and by the end of it Spicer had given the New Jersey group a definite shot in the arm. Even the dissenters left without muttering as much as they had been. In September 1953, another of Dr. Harris’ predictions was fulfilled. He received a summons from the Los Angeles County Medical Association to appear for trial on October 12 for unethical conduct in over-charging three patients for Laetrile, thus allegedly displaying more interest in financial gain than in the welfare of the patients. Checking his files on the three cited cases, Harris was confident that the complaints would not hold up under cross-examination. The first complainant was a widower whose wife had been a patient of Harris’. Files showed that the man had not paid a cent of the bills; they had been paid by the patient’s parents. Harris telephoned the parents, who then assured him that they believed Laetrile had prolonged their daughter’s life and allowed her to die in less misery, that they were satisfied with his services and fees and would willingly say so at the trial. The second case was a man with Hodgkin’s disease; because of the wide involvement, Harris had estimated that the man would require injections of four or five ampules. the man never returned for treatment: there had actually been no occasion to charge anything, let alone overcharge. The third case was a woman who was still concerned about a lump in her breast which had disappeared. Harris suggested a blood test; it was positive. To play safe, he suggested another test, but the woman did not return for it. Laetrile had not been used. From all this, Harris deduced that the discussion at the trial would dwell not on these cases but on Laetrile itself and his continued use of it. This turned out to be true. At one point during the lengthy session, Harris asked: ‘“‘Gentlemen, who is on trial here - - Laetrile or me?”’ Prepared for this trend, Harris had brought along his case histories and

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

63

several patients, but the hearing went so far into the night that he insisted that most of his patients go home for their needed rest. By the time the trial ended at one-thirty in the morning, Harris noticed that several of the 12-man jury were asleep in their chairs. Harris subsequently reported: “In closing, I told the Judiciary Committee that I would continue to use Laetrile as long as I got a case here and there that showed such remarkable results as the two I had presented. I would continue to use Laetrile until I got the final fully synthetic drug. Though that final Laetrile should be infinitely better than the present bio-synthetic (not fully synthetic) Laetrile, I would evaluate it. If it proved no good, I would report it as no good; it it proved to be good, I would so report it. I told the Judiciary Committee that, to date, Laetrile had ruined me financially, that now this Committee was gathered to take away my last asset- -my good, professional name. I told them that, in spite of all this, I would continue to the end.” Two days later, Harris received notice that he had been expelled from the county medical society. He was given the right of appeal to the state association, which he made. Asa result, he was reinstated into the county society. But he never went back to it. Since he intended to continue with Laetrile, the whole thing would start all over again, and there was no sense to it. That winter, Dr. O’Crowley decided his group could use another shot in the arm. He suggested that Ernst T. Krebs Jr. be brought East. This did not turn out so well. Because of Krebs’ soft, halting speech pattern, the doctors in the back of the crowded room had difficulty hearing him. His habit of prefacing his answers by citing his references, by author, by publication, by volume, by date, by page, added to the difficulty. By the time he got to his answer, a lot of doctors in the room had forgotten the question. Unintentionally, Krebs was speaking over the heads of his audience. Many doctors in the room didn’t have time to read the A.M.A. Journal every month, let alone the obscure publications Krebs was quoting.

Some of them hadn’t looked at a medical book since leaving

64

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

medical school. Krebs was being too much for them; but, being Krebs, he couldn’t be anything less. A gradual discontent spread through the room. For example, one doctor asked: “Why is it that when I have a Grade IV cancer and use Laetrile for two or three weeks I find that I have a Grade I on my hands?” The simple answer would have been that Laetrile was evidently decelerating the virulence of the cancer, regressing it to a more controllable level. But Krebs began with his references, and by the time he reached the answer the man who had asked the question was staring at the floor and shaking his head. At the end of the meeting, several men were shaking their heads as they walked out. And the dissenters became voluble again. Something else happened that winter. I had lunch with the managing editor of a widely-circulated newspaper weekend supplement for which I had written many times. As part of the luncheon conversation, I told the editor about my experience with Laetrile for almost two years. The editor asked: ‘‘What are you doing after lunch?”

I said: “I guess I’ll head home and get some work done.” The editor said: ‘Would you be willing to come back to the office. with me and tell the boss about Laetrile? I think he’d be interested.” “Sure. I don’t feel like working, anyway.” After lunch, I sat with the editor and managing editor of the magazine for two hours, going over my experiences. Finally the editor said: “I want that story for this magazine. Would you be willing to sign a contract for it right now?” “IT would,” I said, “but I can’t. It isn’t my story. It’s Harris’ story, if anybody’s.” “Can he write?” *“He’s competent. We bought some stuff from him at Coronet. He’s inclined to over-write, so he needs a firm editor.” “Will you work with him?” “That’s up to him.” “Get in touch with him and find out if he’ll sign with us.” “What terms shall I tell him?” The editor said: ‘I want the American magazine rights for

The Laetrile Battle Coast to Coast

65

ten years. I'll offer a fee of fifty-thousand dollars, payable on a per-piece basis of two or three progress reports a year. If Laetrile is approved within ten years, the full amount becomes due.” “T7ll tell him.” I decided to give this information to Dr. Harris in a letter rather than drop it on him over the phone. A letter would give Harris some time to think about the offer. A few days later, it was Harris who made the call. “I’m happy about this, of course,” he said. ‘““God knowsI need the money. But I don’t think this is the right time to publish an article about Laetrile in a national magazine.” “The people on the other side aren’t dragging their feet,” I pointed out. “I know, and they’re only confusing the issue,” Harris said. He went on: “I feel secure enough about Beardianism and the Laetrile rationale, but we don’t have a very good track record as yet with our patients. MacDonald himself made that clear in his report.” “Is the record any better for surgery or radiation?” “No, I suppose not, but they’re orthodoxy, and Laetrile isn’t. People hope for miracles from surgery and radiation but they really don’t expect them. They would really expect miracles from Laetrile. Can you imagine the rush that would head out here if an article were published now that was in the least favorable to Laetrile? We couldn’t handle it. We couldn’t promise miracles.” “J understand,” I said. ‘“‘I’ll tell the editor that you’re not ready to sign a contract just yet.” “T’ll sign,’’ Harris said, “but only with the condition that there is no early deadline for the first article. I want the dust to settle first, fora few months, probably longer.” *T’1l tell the editor.” “Another thing,” Harris said. “I don’t think my name should appear on the by-line of these articles.” “Why not?” I asked. “It’s your story. Besides, magazines

66

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

love M.D. by-lines.” “IT know,” Harris said, “but you must remember that I am a principal in this controversy. And I am very vulnerable. All that MacDonald would have to do to take the punch out of the article would be to announce nationally that I had been thrown out of the county medical society. That doesn’t mean anything, really, especially since I have been reinstated; but it would look bad to people who don’t understand. There have been enough half-truths already, and they’ve been very harmful. Let’s not open the door to more.” “What do you suggest, then?” I asked. Harris said: “You get the by-line, you do the writing. [ll supply you with all the information you need and I’ll check out your material for accuracy. We’ll split the earnings fiftyfifty.” I said: “What about a split of seventy-thirty, your favor?” Harris said: ‘‘Fifty-fifty.” I said: “Ill tell the editor.” The editor went along with all of Dr. Harris’ conditions. The contract with the magazine and the agreement between Harris and me were negotiated by my agent, Evelyn Singer, and the transaction took a month. To make the contract binding, the magazine offered to put up five percent of the total fee when the transaction was completed. It so happened that I was back in California on other assignments when the transaction was completed. It so happened that I was in Harris’ office when Harris’ share of the advance arrived. Harris looked at the check a long time, then said: “I thought I’d never see another penny come to me out of Laetrile.”” The check wasn’t for all that much. “And there’s more where that came from,” I said. As it turned out, Arthur Harris didn’t live to see another penny come to him out of Laetrile. It so happened that he didn’t live to see his story in print. But without Arthur Harris, there might not be a Laetrile story at all.

é

CHAPTER

7

New Friends and Old Enemies

Now the horizon broadens. With time, other people came along who made contributions to Laetrile as vital as Arthur Harris’. Scientific progress is often an accumulative process. When strangers, working independently in different parts of the world, come up with the same results, the initial efforts are strengthened and made more conclusive. In New Jersey, increased pressures from the Cancer Establishment scattered all but the most dedicated doctors in the O’Crowley group. In California, the Laetrile work was virtually at a standstill. The next step was taken by Edward Spicer. Because of his international reputation, he was able to get Laetrile into the hands of some of the world’s leading cancer researchers. At the time Harris was thrown out of his county medical society, at the time the California Cancer Commission denounced Laetrile, at the time some doctors in New Jersey were running scared, these researchers in other lands were reporting startling results. One of them was Dr. Ettore Guidetti, of the University of Turin, Italy. In July 1954, Guidetti attended the International Union Against Cancer conference, a bi-annual seminar of cancer specialists, held this time in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Earlier, Guidetti had submitted a report on his Laetrile experience. It was approved for presentation at the seminar and for subsequent publication in the organization’s journal. At the seminar, Guidetti first presented a resume of the Laetrile science, then went on to speak of his own cases. In order to observe the Laetrile action directly, Guidetti chose patients with terminal cancers of the uterus, cervix, and rectum and with ulcerating breast cancers. He soaked

67

68

LAETRILE;

Nutritional Control for Cancer

tampons in a Laetrile solution and applied them directly to the growth and left them there for two or three days. He reported that the “destructive action of the glucoside on the cancerous tissue has been very neat and in some cases one has been able to observe a group of fulminating and cauliflowerlike neoplastic masses resolved very rapidly.” He said: ‘“The lytic [dissolving] effects produced by the Laetrile on the neoplastic tissue appear to confirm, consequently, the chemotherapeutic action of the glucoside.’’ Guidetti added that he had also injected Laetrile into patients with lung cancers, and he said: “I have been able to observe with the aid of radiography a regression of the neoplasm or the metastases.” A most interesting aspect of Guidetti’s work was that for the first time Laetrile had been applied directly to cancer growth he could see without having to subject the patients to surgery. There had been criticisms that Laetrile had no effect on the growths, but now Guidetti reported that he had seen them dissolve with his own eyes. When Guidetti finished, an American doctor rose and said that Laetrile had been investigated in the United States and was determined to be worthless. Guidetti said: “I do not care what was determined in the United States. Iam merely reporting what I saw in my own clinic.”” The audience broke into applause. Although newspapers around the world printed column after column on the Guidetti report, there was scarcely a word about it in the American press, despite the fact that American science writers were at the seminar, either on payrolls or on assignment. A delegation from the American Cancer Society was also present. Actually, the San Fernando Valley newspaper that was friendly with Arthur Harris had asked some of the wire services for a report on the Guidetti paper. All the paper received was a brief announcement that the Guidetti report had been read.

Later, when I handed the

science writer for the service a batch of the lengthy reports on Guidetti in the foreign press, he said: ‘‘Guidetti reported only twenty-five cases, and I didn’t think that was enough.” The Journal of the American Medical Association has pub-

New Friends and Old Enemies

69

lished reports on one or two cases. After the seminar, Dr. Guidetti and his wife went to California where they discussed his work with the Krebs’, Spicer and Harris. Spicer urged Guidetti to talk to the group in New Jersey, knowing that the group was beginning to waver. Neither Guidetti or his wife spoke English, but the Catholic publisher in New York was able to locate an American who was studying medicine in Rome and had learned Italian, and the student did the translating at the New Jersey meeting. Guidetti’s presentation was a complete success. Here was a man who not only was a practicing medical doctor but a respected cancer researcher as well. Even translated, he spoke the language of his audience. At one point, Guidetti exhibited some X-rays of a lung cancer that had been the size of a tennis ball when he first saw it and then, after Laetrile, had decreased to the size of a pea. A New Jersey doctor asked: ‘What happened to the patient?” “I don’t know,” Guidetti said. “He began to feel so well that he stopped coming to see me. I suppose if his cancer recurs he will show up again.” Another doctor asked: ‘‘When you had the cancer down to that size, why didn’t you remove it by surgery?” Guidetti said: “I am not in love with surgery.” Without doubt, Guidetti’s visit gave the New Jersey group another shot in the arm, and it turned out to be the last shot in the arm the group would receive. Meanwhile, this came from Dr. Shigeaki Sakai, Dr., M.Sc., internist, in Matsuyama, Japan: ‘“‘Administered to cancer patients, Laetrile has proved to be quite free from any harmful side-effects, and I would say that no anti-cancer drug could make a cancerous patient improve faster than Laetrile. It goes without saying that Laetrile controls cancer:and it is quite effective wherever it is located.” Another important co-worker abroad was Dr. Manuel D. Navarro, professor of biochemistry and therapeutics at the University of Santo Tomas, Manila. At the very time of the California assault, Navarro was addressing the University’s

70

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

medical association with these words: “Since Hippocrates described a disease which we now know as cancer, various groups of oncologists have striven to discover a drug for the treatment of this scourge of mankind. The long years have brought to light innumerable drugs claimed to have incredibly dramatic effectiveness against this disease, which, however, were proven later by controlled experiments as palliative only, if not worthless. ‘Advances in medicine,’ it is said, ‘are like salesmen knocking at your door. Hear them before you dismiss them.’ As a student of biochemistry and oncology, I have ventured, therefore, to knock at your portals to bring to your kind attention and tolerance another of these wonder drugs: Laetrile, a synthetic drug discovered by the Krebs’, which to my mind, training and experience, is the ideal drug for the treatment of cancer.” Navarro proved valuable to the Laetrile project in many ways. He was, first of all, fully qualified to evaluate the drug. He had excellent facilities available for his tests. Patients were plentiful. Also, because of his eminent position in cancer research, he had to be listened to when he spoke. And in addition to speaking, he wrote. Scarcely a year passed once he began his work without a Laetrile article by him in a major scientific publication. Thus Navarro produced a panorama of the Laetrile progress over the years. He had joined the work at the beginning, when the team was small and there was only glimmers of hope, and his own research not only helped build the pyramid of confidence in Laetrile but also attracted other foreign scientists to the steadily growing project. He also contributed importantly to the development of a test which was to give medicine its first weapon in an area crucial to the survival of cancer patients: early diagnosis. In 1927, two German scientists - - Ascheim and Zondek - observed that when they injected extracts of the urine of pregnant women into female mice or rats the animals were stirred to sexual heat. This led to the A-Z pregnancy test and was the basis for practically all subsequent pregnancy tests. Experiments by others identified the active substance

New Friends and Old Enemies

71

as the human chorionic gonadotrophin hormone (HCGH). At the time, it was believed that the embryo produced the hormone for metabolic purposes. An article then appeared in the Journal of Experimental Medicine by Dr. C.D. Cori, to the effect that this same substance had been found in the urine of cancer patients. In 1944, Dr. A. Roffo, working in Argentina’s Institute of Experimental Medicine for the Study and Treatment of Cancer, reported that he had found the hormone in 100% of 1000 cancer patients and found it in none of 1000 people who did not have cancer. A stumbling block was that it had been established that the pituitary gland produced a gonadotrophin hormone; scientists then deduced that the source of the hormone both in pregnancy and in cancer was the gland. However, in 1946, Krebs Jr. and Gurchot succeeded in isolating HCGH from the urine of males with extra-genital cancers and demonstrated it to be chemically and physiologically different from the pituitary hormone. The HCGH, they found, was broken up by the pancreatic enzyme chymotrypsin, whereas the pituitary hormone was not. It was important to remember that, according to John Beard, chymotrypsin also destroyed trophoblast (cancer) cells. This was also important: the pituitary gonadotrophin was normally present in human urine, but the HCGH was present only in pregnancy and cancer. Consequently, it could only be adjudged that a single factor was involved in both situations. According to Beardians, this single factor was the trophoblast cell, functioning normally in pregnancy and functioning abnormally as cancer. And this, too, was important: in pregnancy, the amount of HCGH in the urine of pregnant women rose steadily until the fifty-sixth day, when it declined sharply until it was scarcely detectable. In the urine of cancer patients, on the other hand, the HCGH factor rose steadily and kept rising. And this was vital: when Laetrile was injected into cancer patients the HCGH factor declined. On the basis of these developments, Dr. Howard H. Beard, formerly of Yale and the Chicago Medical School, devised a test which not only readily established the presence of HCGH in aurine specimen but also measured the quantity in a way

72

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

that gauged the extent of any cancerous action. The test proved to be 95% accurate. In Manila, Navarro made modifications in the test and raised its accuracy to 97%. In the July-August 1957 issue of the Santo Tomas Journal of Medicine, Navarro, reporting on 42 cases, said: “The Beard Anthrone Test, which is a test for the by-product of the cancer cells, the chorionic gonadotrophin, is a micro-Ascheim-Zondek test. It is used for the diagnosis of early pregnancy and malignancy of all types. In this study, four surgical biopsies have been found negative for malignancy yet these cases were all positive to the Beard Anthrone Test. Autopsy or laparatomy much later proved that the Beard Anthrone Test was accurate in the earlier stages of the malignant process. In this series, a 97% accuracy was obtained. This test seems to be an excellent gauge of the response to the effectiveness of the treatment given to the cancerous patient. “That this test would come in very handy when no tissue or exfoliated cells are available to be sent to the pathologist for histological examination is: obvious; moreover, when radiography casts doubt on a diagnosis of malignancy, the use of the Beard Anthrone Test would certainly aid greatly in the solution of the diagnostic difficulty.” Something more could be inferred. When the Navarro HCGH test is perfected, it will be possible to detect cancer before there is any clinical evidence of it. Thereafter, people need go to their doctors just twice a year to have their urine analyzed: if any HCGH is found in any men and in non-pregnant women, they need merely take Laetrile and go on a proper diet to kill the active trophoblasts which are producing the hormone. This way, the cancer need never go beyond the early stage. However, what should have become a science remained an art. Although Dr. Navarro and several others were able to use the Beard test effectively, others arrived at inconsistent results. A lot of money went into perfecting the test for universal effectiveness, and the research is still going on with the Navarro HCGH Test. In a sense, the test was ahead of its time in terms of a control of early cancers. When the rush to Laetrile by cancer patients began several years later, most of

New Friends and Old Enemies

the patients already had advanced cancers and a measure of their HCGH factor was not crucial. The use of the test, then, as a means of early detection and the prevention of fatal cancers remains a triumph of the future. The future held little for Arthur Harris. When he began his work with Laetrile, Harris had a beautiful home and a couple of expensive cars. Two years later, in sad truth, he was able to tell his county medical society that he was on the verge of bankruptcy. Harris continued using Laetrile in California until 1957, by which time it became financially imperative for him to give up his home and cars and move his family into a small house trailer. His patients could not pay him: they had exhausted their savings paying cancer surgeons and cancer radiologists and orthodox cancer chemotherapists. Harris had to decide to move elsewhere or starve. He decided to move - - all the way back to South Africa. In 1958, he took a position with the Department of Medicine of the Natal government as supervisor of tuberculosis treatment in 41 hospitals affiliated with Christian missionary stations. The work required a great deal of driving over the rugged African roads, and after two years of it Harris perceived that his heart condition was returning and he was forced to resign. He joined the staff of a native hospital in Zululand. On February 23, 1962, he had the night duty. Early in the evening, he telephoned his wife to remind her that some old missionary friends were arriving the next day and would be guests in the Harris home, then he began his rounds of the hospital. Around ten he was summoned to the delivery of a native woman, which turned out to be a breech birth. In the last minutes of the ordeal, the nurse assisting Harris observed that his eyes had become glassy. The baby was safely delivered; Harris spanked out its first scream of life, then he checked the mother to be sure she was all right. As the nurse left the room with the baby, she saw Harris back away and sink wearily onto a straight chair. When the nurse returned a few moments later, Harris was dead. Arthur Harris’ death deeply shocked and saddened those who knew of the sacrifices he had made rather than abandon

73

74

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

his Laetrile work under a great deal of pressure. He had lost a lot, but he had not really lost. Even as he was dying, he had brought a new life into the world, and this was a fitting monument for a doctor who had risked everything he had to preserve the lives of his cancer patients. A few months after Harris and Lhad signed the contract to write about Laetrile for the newspaper supplement, we submitted two articles. The editor turned the articles over to his medical advisor and received the same advice that had been given to Coronet: Don’t touch it. It began to look as though nobody would touch it. And then appeared the man who touched the subject and thereupon gave his own life to Laetrile, although in a different way, and who then, in all likelihood, saved the life of Laetrile itself. Andrew R.L. McNaughton was born in England and raised both there and in Canada. His father was General A.G.L. McNaughton, commander of the Canadian forces during World War II, also president of the National Research Council of Canada, Chairman General of the International Joint Commission, and president of the United Nations Security Council. The younger McNaughton’s education included a four year classical course under the Jesuits at Loyola College in Montreal; electrical engineering at the Canadian Royal Military College; geology and mining at McGill University; and business administration at the Alexander Hamilton Institute. During World War II, he became chief test pilot of the Royal Canadian Air Force and commanded the Experimental Test and Development Center. He was awarded the Air Force Cross for his work as a test pilot. Andrew McNaughton is a member of the Engineering Institute of Canada; The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers; the American Aeronautics and Space Institute; the New York Academy of Sciences; and a Patron of Point Reyes Bird Observatory in California. In 1968 he became a Knight of the Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem (Malta), Grand Priory of Dacia. In 1970 he was appointed a Member of the Court of Benefac-

New Friends and Old Enemies

75

tors of the Royal Society of Medicine in England. Scientific research has alway$ been a favorite realm for McNaughton. As a boy, he grew up in a home where his father’s guests were some of the biggest names in science, and he often heard the complaints of scientists about getting a hearing from their peers. He founded The McNaughton Foundation for the purpose of sponsoring independent scientific research. The goal: to get hearings for scientists who had something new to say worth hearing. McNaughton would probably identify himself as a pragmatist; but, at heart, he has always been an idealist. For a while in his teens, he thought seriously about becoming a Roman Catholic priest, until, as he once said: ‘One beautiful spring day, I discovered girls.” It was this same idealism that led him, in the 1940s, to give his services freely as an agent for the Ministry of Defense of Israel when the Jews were fighting to establish a nation for themselves in the Middle East. In fact, Shimon Peres, his boss in those days, later became the Minister of Defense of Israel and is currently the leader of the principal opposition party in the government of Israel. In the late 1950s, the same idealism led him to become a member of the 26th of July Movement in Cuba and he soon found himself assigned to become one of the chief armament purchasing agents, as a double agent, for the government of President Batista but in reality working for the revolutionary forces of Fidel Castro. After the overthrow of Batista, McNaughton was appointed an honorary citizen of Cuba by the new government in recognition of his services. Here again, not only did he work without personal gain but he contributed considerable sums of his own to the cause of the revolutionaries. Again it was the same idealism which, in 1956, led McNaughton into the Laetrile crusade. At that time, when McNaughton first appeared on the Laetrile horizon, the New York Catholic publisher had a Dun and Bradstreet check made on him, and the report said: ‘Mr. McNaughton’s personal fortune is not known, but is considered to be sizable.” Twenty years later, in the spring of 1977, I was with Mc-

76

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Naughton one day in his office in Tijuana, Mexico, as he was flipping through the morning’s mail, and McNaughton said: “I keep getting threatening letters from the credit-card people. I’m always overdrawn on my limits.” So the sizable fortune was gone.

In 1956, McNaughton was in Miami on the business ofhis foundation. At the same time, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. was also in Miami on business. Without realizing it, they had mutual friends. One of these friends, Harry Jordan Goodfriend, knew about Krebs’ work with Laetrile and knew about McNaughton’s interest in independent research. Goodfriend brought Krebs and McNaughton together. The two of them had their first meeting in a Rexall drugstore in Miami Beach, where these two giants had breakfast together at the soda

fountain. McNaughton was fascinated by Krebs’ accounts of Beardianism, Laetrile, and the attacks by the Cancer Establishment. The two met again the next day and the next. Then Krebs had to go back to San Francisco. A few days later, his own business in Florida finished, McNaughton flew to San Francisco. He had more talks with Krebs Jr. He had long talks with Krebs Sr. and with Gurchot. He went to Los Angeles and met with Spicer. By this time, Harris had gone back to Africa, but Spicer had copies of Harris’ case histories and the transcripts of his trials before the county and state medical associations. By the time McNaughton headed back to Montreal, he had a suitcase full of supportive documentation on Laetrile. Because of his personal and family relationships in science, McNaughton was able to go right to the top. He presented the documentation to Dr. N.R. Bouziane, professor of pathology and biochemistry at the University of Montreal, dean of the American College of Bio-analysts, and Director of Research Laboratories and Chemotherapy Specialist of the Tumor Board of Montreal’s famed Hopital Ste. Jeanne-d’Arc. Bouziane later said: “When you have spent your life in research, you pick up a lot of ‘excess baggage’ which you can’t use at the moment but hope will prove useful later on. It so happened that when I read the Krebs paper I had the ‘excess

New Friends and Old Enemies

oa]

baggage’ to grasp the Beardian thesis immediately and to recognize its value. It seemed onl¥ reasonable that I should use Laetrile on my cancer patients.” To benefit from a variety of opinions, McNaughton circulated the Krebs’ papers to other Canadian scientists, including Dr. Jacques Daneau, of the Canadian Radium Institute. The opinions were all the same: The subject was interesting and worthy of further study. A few months later, arrangements were made for a Canadian investigation of Laetrile under The McNaughton Foundation’s sponsorship. Government permission was necessary to use the drug in hospitals; McNaughton requested it and obtained it. At the same time, McNaughton set up a channel of communications from his office to the pertinent government, medical and scientific organizations in order to keep them informed of developments, and all agreed that the work should be done without publicity in order to prevent spreading false hopes or eliciting criticisms left over from the California evaluation. The Canadian work began in the late 1950s and continued quietly for two years, by which time Laetrile was being used in ten hospitals in Quebec Province. From the start, the results were the same as they had been in other countries. The important difference was the scope of the work. Though working independently of each other, the score of Canadian doctors nevertheless comprised an impressive team. Discussions of Beardianism and Laetrile were held at both McGill University and the University of Montreal. Krebs was summoned to Montreal to answer questions put to him by a symposium of Canadian specialists. From this meeting, the subjects of Beard’s science and Laetrile moved into the classrooms of McGill University and the University of Montreal where they were presented to the future

doctors of Canada. Other things were happening. About the time Harris moved back to Africa, Dr. O’Crowley had a heart attack that forced him into retirement. He moved to a house he owned on an island off New England. With his departure, the Laetrile group in New Jersey disbanded, much to the relief of the

78

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Cancer Establishment. But the relief was shortlived. Through his business interests, Andrew McNaughton came to know a New York lawyer named Stephen Hoffman. A friend of Hoffman’s was a New Jersey doctor.named John A. Morrone. For several years, Morrone had been a professor of surgery at Fordham University. Then, as his family began to grow, he went into private practice, living in Fort Lee, New Jersey and maintaining an office in Jersey City. He eventually became Chief Surgeon at the Jersey City Medical Center. As McNaughton became increasingly active in the Laetrile program, he would talk to Hoffman about it during their meetings in New York. In the same way, Hoffman would talk to Morrone on their social evenings together. Morrone was interested, but he was a busy man and was not moved to become personally involved. Then Hoffman told him that Krebs Jr. was going to Montreal for the symposium with the Canadian specialists, and Morrone decided he ought to attend. During the Krebs presentation, Morrone took a lot of notes, especially noting the references Krebs so frequently cited; and during the period for questions, Morrone was on his feet several times. After the meeting, Morrone headed for the medical library at McGill University to look up some of the Krebs references. He was there about fifteen minutes when he saw Krebs come in and head for the index files. Morrone went to Krebs, introduced himself, then said: “I was at the symposium this morning. It was very interesting.” “It was a good meeting, wasn’t it?” Krebs said. ‘There were some very knowledgeable people there, including you. What are you doing here?” “T’m checking you out,” Morrone admitted with a laugh. “What are you doing here?” “I’m checking myself out,’ Krebs admitted and he laughed. They had lunch. By the time Morrone got back to New

Jersey he was a convinced Laetrilist. Spicer sent him some of the material, and Morrone started using it on his cancer pa-

New Friends and Old Enemies

719

tients in his office, in their homes and in the hospital. His results were so consistently positive that he began talking to his medical friends about it. So it didn’t take long for the Cancer Establishment to find out that Laetrile had been re-activated in New Jersey. Suddenly Laetrile was a crime. Because of new F.D.A. regulations passed by Congress, Laetrile — or anything else, for that matter — could not be used in humans in the United States until not only its safety but now also its efficacy had been established to the satisfaction of the F.D.A. As it turned out, this procedure — whatever the substance — would take about seven years and cost about twenty million dollars. In California, Laetrile was totally banned. Spicer had to stop making it. The Krebs’ kept making it in the laboratory in small quantities for shipment overseas, thereby subjecting themselves to frequent raids. The whole thing was ludicrous. Laetrile existed in nature as amygdalin in, among other things, apricot kernels, and California had some of the biggest apricot orchards in the country. In fact, McNaughton had arranged to have Laetrile produced in Canada, and he bought the apricot kernels from California companies that canned apricots and were glad to make a little money off the kernels instead of just throwing them away. Getting Laetrile back into the country was another matter. It was, quite plainly, a matter of smuggling. Like Dr. O’Crowley, Dr. Morrone was too important a man in medicine to be pushed around. He once said: “‘I guess my problem is that I don’t scare easily.” Morrone told me that he knew his office was being covertly entered and searched for Laetrile on an on-going basis. He also knew that his car was broken into and searched, broken into so expertly that only Morrone could tell because certain items had not been carefully replaced. Once an F.D.A. agent called on Morrone at his home. Morrone suggested that they go down to his bar in the basement for a drink as they talked. As they talked, Morrone’s supply of Laetrile was in a refrigerator ten feet away. Morrone told me: “If they want to play games, we’ll play

80

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

games. If they catch me, we’ll all spend the next ten years in court. A doctor has the ethical right to inject manure into a patient if he is convinced that it can do some good. I know that Laetrile is doing some good for my cancer patients and I’m going to keep using it, even if it means going to jail.” Morrone never had to go to jails In fact, his determination to continue using Laetrile eventually produced the weapon that took Laetrile out of the closet and onto the front pages.

é

CHAPTER 8 The People Versus the Establishment

I learned about Andrew McNaughton’s entrance into the Laetrile picture from Edward Spicer. Since the Laetrile work in the U.S. was virtually at a standstill, moving the project to another country where there appeared to be more freedom seemed logical. Moreover, Spicer spoke glowingly about McNaughton. Not only was the man rich and well connected, but his personal and professional backgrounds equipped him brilliantly to function within the labyrinths of governmental agencies. And there was something else. The Krebs’, both father and son, were headstrong men, always with their dukes up. What was needed now was a diplomat. By this time, with Harris in Africa, I had just about given up any expectations of ever being involved in any writing about Laetrile. But now that the project had moved to a new country and was under new leadership, I wanted to find out whether I should give up the whole idea or not. For this reason I wrote McNaughton, got an appointment, and went up to Montreal. The meeting lasted all day, the two of us exchanging views and experiences. At the end of the session, McNaughton said: ‘To be frank with you, I didn’t want to meet you just yet. I had the feeling that you were in a rush to get into print.” “I’m not,” I said. “Besides, I wouldn’t start the writing until I had a publisher, and these days I don’t know a publisher who would touch the subject.” “That will change,” McNaughton said. Then: “Another thing. I would never try to tell a writer what to write; butI hope that when you do find a publisher you will let me see the manuscript before you go into print, if only for the sake of accuracy.”

8]

82

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

“That’s exactly the way I want it,” I said. Thereafter, McNaughton sent me copies of all of his correspondence pertinent to Laetrile. Other business matters took McNaughton into New York frequently, and:he and I would meet. It was through McNaughton that I met Dr. Morrone. Meanwhile, I kept Harris advised: of all that was happening. And a lot was. It didn’t take long for the Canadian equivalent of the American Cancer Society to start putting on pressure to ban Laetrile in that country. It didn’t take long for the Canadian

equivalent of the F.D.A. to follow suit. The Canadian equivalent of the A.M.A. was divided into two groups - - the English-speaking doctors and the French-speaking doctors, and it didn’t take long for the English-speaking group to join the objectors. And reprints of the MacDonald-Garland 1953 report, already discredited as scientifically worthless, began flooding the country. All this, despite the fact that Dr. Bouziane, one of the most respected scientists in the world, reported: ‘“‘In our investigation, some terminal cases were so hopeless that they did not even receive what we consider the basic dose of 30 grams. Most of the cases, however, became ambulatory and some have in this short time resumed their normal activities on a maintenance dosage.” And Dr. Morrone was writing: “The use of Laetrile intravenously in ten cases of inoperable cancer, all with metastases, provided a dramatic relief from pain, discontinuance of narcotics, control of fetor, improved appetite and reduction of adenopathy. The results suggest regression of the malignant lesion.” Then something completely unexpected happened. The magazine managing-editor who had been instrumental in getting the Laetrile contract for Harris and me had gone over to another publication, also a weekend supplement, and I continued to write for him on other subjects. Over the years, I kept the editor informed on Laetrile developments. One day at lunch, the editor said: “I would love to publish a couple

of articles

on

Laetrile, but I know

my

boss

The People Versus the Establishment

83

would say no unless you had,something more positive to stand on.” “Like what?” I asked. “Well, maybe a favorable article in a medical journal.” I asked: “What about Navarro’s publications in Manila?” The editor shook his head. “It would have to be an American doctor.” “These days,” I said, “any American doctor who admits that he is using Laetrile on cancer patients could lose his license.”’ “Well, it would have to be something like that,” the editor said. And this happened. I was visiting one day with Hy Steirman, a writer, an editor, and a publisher. Steirman had been listening to me talk about Laetrile for ten years. This time, Steirman brought up the subject. He said: “I am starting a new paperback publishing company and I want you to write a book for me on Laetrile.” I said: “McNaughton will have to decide whether the time has come.” Then I told Steirman about the magazine offer. Steirman said: “It would be great if the book could come out right after the magazine article. But who’s going to write the favorable medical report?” “That’s up to McNaughton, too.”’ I said. McNaughton decided that the time had indeed come for the Laetrile story to be told. Up to this point, the only publicity Laetrile had received had been in the form of attacks. The time had come to set the record straight. McNaughton was able to persuade Dr. Morrone to write a report on ten of his cases in which there had been a positive response to Laetrile, and the doctor did a masterful job: cautious, specific, scientific. Chances of getting the report published in any medical journal under the influence of the American Cancer Establishment were nil, but McNaughton succeeded in having it accepted by an international publication in Europe. It appeared late in 1962. By this time, Harris was dead, so I relied on Morrone and the Krebs’ for scientific guidance for the two-part article I

84

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

wrote, on McNaughton and Spicer for everything else. The first article appeared a few months after the Morrone publication. Usually the newspapers carrying the supplement received their supply early in the week of dated release, some issuing the magazine on Saturday, most on Sunday. On the Saturday of the weekend for my first article, the F.D.A. issued a statement in Washington, D.C., referring to the article and denouncing the subject. Newspaper reports on the statement received wider circulation than the article did. How the F.D.A. managed to be so well prepared ahead of time was never established. Then a spokesman for the American Medical Association sent a letter to the editor of the magazine, saying, in effect: “We are surprised to see that you have become a party to this kind of medical chicanery.” I thereupon sued the A.M.A. for $2 million for slander. The matter was settled out of court when the A.M.A. sent me a letter of apology. I finished the manuscript on the Laetrile book in March 1963. I submitted it to Steirman on a Thursday. On Friday Steirman called and asked if I could be in Buffalo on Monday morning to correct the galleys. I went to Buffalo Sunday night, and when I got to the printer’s Monday morning some galleys were already awaiting me. Around three that afternoon, just as I was finishing the job, I looked up and saw Hy Steirman enter the room. An hour later, the two of us were in the printshop, watching finished copies of the book coming out of the binding machines. Five hundred thousand copies were printed, and shipments were started immediately. This was a courageous thing for Hy Steirman to do. In the first place, it was a sizable financial investment. Secondly, instead of following the usual publishing procedure of first sending out circulars about the book for distributors to use for orders from their outlets, Steirman had shipped books on the expectation that orders would come in later. Thirdly, as far as the general public was concerned, the Laetrile story was mostly a California story and, despite my magazine articles, millions of people in the country had never heard the word Laetrile.

The People Versus the Establishment

85

About a week later, Steirmay learned that the books were coming back faster than they were being shipped out. Both he and I checked this out, and we were told that owners of drugstores, a vital outlet for paperbacks, had been notified that any druggist who displayed my book on his paperback racks would not receive any more prescriptions from members of the American Medical Association. At this time, I went to Washington D.C., to be interviewed on radio about a book on an entirely different subject, and the master of ceremonies changed the conversation to a discussion on Laetrile. A listener called in and said he had just been in a People’s Drugstore where he saw copies of my book being carried out on, he was told, orders of the American Medical Association. I went to the drugstore but could not get any confirmation of the report. I then went to the distributor’s warehouse where I saw boxes of the book coming back, and the distributor said: ‘This is happening all over town.” And this: It had been arranged for Dr. Morrone and me to appear on NBC’s Today Show vis-a-vis a representative of the F.D.A. The appearance was cancelled. Apparently, when the network approached the F.D.A. for a spokesman, the network was told that if one minute of time was given to a discussion of Laetrile no member of the F.D.A. or the A.M.A. would appear on the program again. And this: It was arranged for McNaughton to be interviewed in the New York Office of United Press International. The interview took place late one afternoon in the UPI reception room. I was present. When no article appeared over the next few days, an investigation indicated that an article had been written and sent to the UPI office in Washington, D. C. from where it went to the F.D.A., and that was the end of it. When I tried to confirm this by a letter to the president of UPI, I was informed that no article had been written in the first place. So it looked like a disaster. But not quite.

86

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Fortunately, the American. Cancer Establishment did not have complete control of the media. This happened: Living in San Diego, California was Mrs. Cecile P. Hoffman. Mrs. Hoffman had already undergone a mastectomy. She was now facing another. Her husband, an engineer, worked for the city. One day, he had occasion to go to Los Angeles on business, and on his way home he stopped at a newsstand in the airport to get something to read during the flight. He saw my book and he bought it. He read it. When he got home, he gave the book to his wife to read. As a result, she decided that she would not undergo surgery again. Instead, she went to Canada and received Laetrile therapy under the auspices of The McNaughton Foundation. In six weeks, there was no clinical evidence of cancer in Mrs. Hoffman’s body. She was told, however, that she would have to remain on a maintenance dosage. At the time, Laetrile was not being taken orally, and this meant Mrs. Hoffman had to find a doctor who would give her the injections. She could not find a doctor in California who would do so. Through friends in a Methodist church, Mrs. Hoffman heard about Dr. Ernesto Contreras, in Tijuana, Mexico. Dr. Contreras was already highly respected in international medicine. After completing his studies in Mexico, he did postgraduate work at Harvard’s Children’s Hospital in Boston. He served as professor of histology and pathology at the Mexican Army Medical School, and as the chief pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City. Dr. Contreras was also a lay preacher in the Methodist Church. He also sang in the choir and composed music for the group. Mrs. Hoffman went to Dr. Contreras and asked him if he would give her the Laetrile injections. He said yes. For Mrs. Hoffman, the problem was over. But she realized that there were thousands of people in the country still facing the same problem. These people, after having undergone surgery, radiation and orthodox chemotherapy, had come to the end of the line and felt they had no way to turn. That was the crushing desolation of cancer: the end of the line.

The People Versus the Establishment

87

But Mrs. Hoffman had found a way to turn. She felt she now had to show others the way. She organized the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends (IACVF). The goal: to educate the general public to the options available to cancer patients, especially terminal cancer patients. The hope: to bring about the day when there would not be any terminal cancer patients. Mrs. Hoffman started IACVF with the help of her husband and a few friends in San Diego and Los Angeles. These friends had friends in other parts of the country, and those friends had friends. In a short time, several regional chapters of IACVF were established. When the association began to hold annual conventions in Los Angeles, crowds of thousands arrived from all over the country. There were some unexpected developments. Although the IACVF did not proffer Laetrile exclusively as anti-cancer therapy, it was Laetrile that people wanted. With Laetrile virtually banned in the U.S. and about to be banned in Canada, this left only Mexico as a haven for Laetrile therapy. And this created a problem in logistics. First, Dr. Contreras’ small clinic in Tijuana was not equipped to take care of an avalanche of patients, the staff too small. Then there was a language problem. Although Contreras and a couple of his people spoke English, the rest of the staff did not. And what about board and room for the patients who might have to stay for a while? Tijuana did not have the facilities. Besides, Tijuana had a bad name, being known as a point of entry for drug smugglers and illegal aliens, not to mention the town’s reputation for wild entertainments. To resolve this, IACVF made arrangements at a small motel on the California side of the border where Laetrile patients could receive board and room for $55 a week, a fraction of what a cancer patient would pay for a day in an American hospital. The motel provided a bus to take the patients to Dr. Contreras every day for treatment. The language problem was overcome when Contreras provided translators for his staff. The problem of limited facilities was overcome when Contreras expanded his clinic and then eventually built

88

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

a bigger one a few miles out of town. A development that was inevitable was the appearance of other groups similar to IACVF. In Los Angeles, the Cancer Control Society came into being. In New York, the Foundation for Alternative Cancer Therapies was founded. And the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy was started in Los Altos, California. All of these organizations developed chapters across the country, their active memberships totalling many thousands, with thousands more attending their monthly meetings and annual conventions. All four of the organizations played crucial roles in moving the Laetrile project forward toward general acceptance and legalization. And there was this development: The concept of cancer as a metabolic disease that could respond to metabolic therapy struck home with the growing army of nutritionalists, both professional and lay people who were strong advocates of proper diet and health foods. In fact, it was this concept and the wide response to it that opened up a whole new world for Laetrile.

CHAPTER 9 Cancer and Nutrition

Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. puts it this way: ‘When a person gets shot, he doesn’t die from the toxic effects of the lead bullet. He dies from the damage the bullet does to his vital organs. It is the same with cancer. People don’t die from cancer. They die from the damage that cancer does to their vital organs. Once a cancer has been brought under control or terminated, it becomes the job of the physician to go to work on repairs of the damaged organs. One way is the use of vitamins and enzymes and proper diet.” Krebs has also said: ‘People were eating Laetrile-amygdalin long before they started getting injected with it.” As early as 1960, Dr. Morrone said: ‘‘Somebody ought to figure out a way for cancer patients to take Laetrile orally.

It would be much simpler for a patient to take a few pills a day than to have to go out to a doctor’s office for the injection.” In the early days, Laetrile was not administered orally to humans because it was then thought that Laetrile might be too toxic by this route, even though animal tests did show a low level of toxicity when the material was given orally. In those days, it was not well understood that with cyanide, not being a cumulative toxin, the most important consideration is the rate of ingestion, not the amount of Laetrile ingested. Years later, it was established that taking Laetrile orally posed no problems at all, provided that the rate of ingestion was kept below the ability of the body to detoxify the cyanide released. Nutrition as a factor in cancer therapy is, in a way, a relatively new concept, and one reason it has been slow in catching on in the medical profession is that the Cancer Establishment still has not recognized cancer as a metabolic disease.

89

90

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Only in recent years has the dietician in a hospital been accepted as a vital member of the medical team. Even so, the idea that what you eat - - or don’t eat - - can be a factor in the control of cancer, perhaps even the prevention of cancer, remains too farfetched in the eyes of orthodoxy. Asa result, few members of the American Medical Association would be qualified these days to prescribe a proper diet for a cancer patient. Carlton Fredericks, certainly qualified to speak on nutrition, has often spoken favorably about Laetrile in this regard. Another qualified spokesman has been Maurice H. Kowan, M.D., a California physician who, like Harris, got into trouble for using Laetrile and had to curtail his work with it. Dr. Kowan has reported: “To be most effective, Laetrile should be combined with proper diet and hygienic care. The ideal diet would be one with a low protein intake. This is based on the fact that cancer cells must have complete proteins in the diet in order to survive and multiply. Therefore, to secure the best and most rapid results with Laetrile therapy, it is essential to eliminate entirely for some time all animal proteins, such as meat, fish, fowl, eggs and cheese. “The general diet should consist of salt-free, non-processed foods, free from carcinogenic additives. Lightly cooked - but not canned - - foods are permitted. Recommended foods are: Kefir milk and buttermilk; whole grain cereals such as oatmeal, buckwheat, millet and brown rice; fat-free raw milk (one pint maximum daily); soups; vegetables including potatoes and raw salads as tolerated; raw fresh fruit and vegetable juice extracted with a pressure - - not centrifugal - - juicer; raw or cooked fruit; raw nuts and nut butters, especially almonds. “Another help in the absorption of the malignant tissue is the consumption of several 8-ounce glasses of the fresh raw juices, drunk within 30 minutes after juicing. The constituents should be altered occasionally so the patient will not tire of it. The juice regime which I recommend consists of a minimum of four glasses a day of equal parts of carrot and apple, plus another four glasses of fresh juice consisting of romaine,

Cancer and Nutrition

91

celery, grapes, beets and other fresh vegetables in season. Any of the following pressuré-type juicers could be used: Norwalk, K & K, Champion and Vita-Press. “ It is essential that the cancer patient include in his daily diet a generous supply of standard pancreatic enzymes, such as Chymoral-100 (Armour Co.) or Pancreatin (Lilly Co.). A minimum of three or four should be taken daily on an empty stomach. A generous intake of Vitamin C (12 grams daily in divided doses is suggested) also will aid in recovery. “When I first began using Laetrile therapy in the treatment of cancer, I noted that pain relief was secured in practically every case within a few days time with the daily injection. For the first year, I stressed only the Laetrile, not realizing the extreme importance of a dietary regime. My proportion of clinical relief was about 20% to 30%, but when later I gave increased dosage of Laetrile and combined it with specific dietary and enzyme regime, my results in terminal cases reached practically 100% improvement.” Note that Dr. Kowan said “‘specific dietary and enzyme regime.” This is the heart of the matter. And another part of the heart of the matter is that he was talking about cancer patients already on Laetrile. Since cancer is a metabolic disease, metabolism in all its aspects is a factor in cancer therapy. Qualified physicians say that no cancer patient, especially a patient receiving Laetrile therapy, should go on any kind of a special diet without consulting his doctor or consulting a nutritionist recommended by his doctor. Future doctors will certainly have a better training in nutritional matters, as today some younger doctors already do, but in the meantime no cancer patient should take his dietary adjustments into his own hands. At the same time, there are lots of people around who don’t have cancer and don’t want cancer, and, according to the experts, there are certain dietary factors to which these people can turn in order to stay that way. It was Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. who designated Laetrile-amygdalin as Vitamin B-17. A lot of nutritionists don’t accept that designation. So what? Most dictionaries define a vitamin in this way: “Any of a group of complex organic substances found in minute

92

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

quantities in most natural foodstuffs, and closely associated with the maintenance of normal physiological functions in man and animals.” If a person’s diet does not contain some of these necessary substances for normal physiological functions, he can obtain them by taking vitamins in one form or another. : Laetrile-amygdalin-B-17 exists in various quantities in over 1200 different vegetables, fruits and grasses. On its way to your table, much of the substance is lost through the methods of processing and canning foods. As Dr. Kowan suggested, it is more beneficial to eat fruits and vegetables raw or just slightly cooked for warmth and taste. This: an excellent source of Laetrile-amygdalin-B-17 is the apricot kernel. The meat of an apricot probably contains a trace of the substance, not much more, but the kernel is abundant. There was a time when you could walk into practically any health food store in the country and buy all the apricot kernels you wanted. But then, in its fight against Laetrile as cancer therapy, the F.D.A. issued an order that outlawed transactions of apricot kernels of any kind. F.D.A. agents went into health food stores all over the country and confiscated supplies of apricot kernels; and if an owner was subsequently found to have more apricot kernels in stock, he was subject to arrest, fines and imprisonment. So this situation developed: if you go to your supermarket today and buy some fresh apricots and take them home, you are not only taking home the meat of apricots but also the kernels of apricots; and even if you intend to throw the kernels away after you eat the meat, you nevertheless have apricot kernels in your possession, your intention is immaterial, and you are a criminal, subject to arrest, fines and imprisonment. This actually happened: a commercial grower of apricots in the South loaded a truck with tons of apricot kernels to be shipped elsewhere. As soon as the truck crossed a state line, it was descended upon by F.D.A. agents who arrested the driver, confiscated the apricot kernels and began legal action against the grower. The grower entered-a countersuit, demanding that either the apricot kernels be returned to him or he be paid for them. The court decided in the grower’s favor.

Cancer and Nutrition

93

He got the kernels back. Another food item rich in Laétrile-amygdalin-B-1 7 is bitter almonds. Dr. Kowan suggested that his cancer patients eating several bitter almonds a day wash them down with coffee and honey to get rid of the bitter taste. But by order of the F.D.A., bitter almonds have not been sold in this country for years. Instead, they are shipped to countries like Germany where housewives use them in their cooking and salads. Meanwhile, the F.D.A. was regularly publishing a list of substances approved for use as medicaments in humans. Extracts of bitter almonds have been listed as approved for years. Thus despite the efforts of the American Cancer Establishment the subject of Laetrile simply would not go away. In fact, in 1977, the publishers of one of the world’s most popular dictionaries contacted the McNaughton Foundation, disclosed the intention of using the word ‘“‘Laetrile” in future editions, and asked certain questions. Here are the Foundation’s answers: *“LAETRILE — (Lay-eh-tril)

“BASIC INGREDIENTS: An organic aglycone or nonsugar portion combined with a cyanide group and carbohydrate in glycosidic linkage to form a single tightly bound molecule. “CHEMICAL FORMULA: Since Laetrile is a collective name for a group of chemically related compounds, the generic name for which is nitriloside, it cannot be given a specific chemical formula. A well known analogy is digitalis which represents a general group of chemically related compounds to which no specific formula can be assigned. “ETYMOLOGY: Originally used as a shortened term for a laevo-rotatory glycuronic nitrile. Its meaning has been expanded to represent a shortened term for any

laevo-rotatory glucosidic or glucuronic chemical compound containing an aglycone and a tightly bound (CN) grouping.”

94

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

Many nutritionists feel that, if you don’t have cancer and are not under Laetrile therapy, it would be a good idea for you to eat several apricot kernels or bitter almonds a day. One apricot kernel per each 10-pounds of body weight per day is currently being suggested as an aid in the prevention of cancer. If you can’t get them, there are other foodstuffs which contain Vitamin B-17 which the F.D.A. has not as yet totally removed from the marketplace. In Chapter 11 is a list of foods containing Vitamin B-17 in various quantities, plus suggestions for Vitamin B-17 meals that can make your life better.

CHAPTER

10

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

The struggle was to keep the Laetrile program alive. For a while, Andrew McNaughton was able to have Laetrile manufactured openly in Canada. The material was readily available to Canadian patients. American patients could go to Montreal and get a supply, and it was then up to them to get it back to their homes. Usually there was only one way: smuggling. And McNaughton was able to supply Dr. Contreras in Tijuana by placing the consignments on nonstop commercial air flights from Montreal to Mexico City. But then the U.S. Cancer Establishment put pressures on the Canadian Cancer Establishment and McNaughton found himself in court trying to preserve his right to have Laetrile manufactured in Canada. He lost. McNaughton was deeply concerned about the work in Mexico. What had begun as a trickle of American cancer patients was beginning to reach flood levels. Motels on the American side of the Mexican border were packed with cancer victims who crossed over into Mexico every morning and went to Contreras’ clinic for their daily Laetrile injections, then returned to their motels with the forbidden substance in their veins. I visited Contreras’ clinic in those days of the mid-1960s. I visited some of the motels. Everywhere I talked to patients. It was hard to believe that these were doomed people. Morale was high. Patients joked with each other about what sad shape they had been in when they arrived for treatment a week or so earlier. Always I heard the same personal comments: less pain, if any; less need for narcotics, if any; improved appetites; gains in weight; a general feeling of well-being. The day came, most often, when the patients were able to go home, continuing on a maintenance dosage. So they had to resort to the same tactics that Amer-

a5

ieee

96

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

icans in Canada had used: they had to become smugglers. Merely trying to stay alive, therefore, was making criminals out ofa lot of otherwise innocent people. But the work was important enough to sustain. McNaughton moved to Sausalito, California, where he opened an office of The McNaughton Foundation. He then managed to bring together the necessary equipment to manufacture Laetrile and he went into production. Visitors entering Mexico are seldom stopped for customs inspection by the Mexican guards. For that matter, Laetrile was legal in Mexico. Getting supplies to Dr. Contreras, then, was no problem. Getting maintenance supplies back into the U.S. remained a problem for many years. A great deal of Laetrile was confiscated. People were arrested, put in jail, stood trial and paid fines. Even so, a spokesman of the Bureau of Customs once disclosed that more Laetrile was being smuggled into the country than heroin. It was a sorry state of affairs. Andrew McNaughton came to the conclusion that it would be a long time before Laetrile was approved in the U.S. or Canada, and he decided that he must broaden the Laetrile horizons. For seven years, McNaughton and his wife Jacqueline traveled widely, meeting leading cancer scientists in other countries, discussing Laetrile with them, persuading them to use it. McNaughton opened three Laetrile factories in Europe. With the approval of the Mexican government, he opened another factory at Tijuana. McNaughton felt that the ownership and operation of these factories should always be in local hands. This was important for the acceptance of Laetrile, and it protected him against any accusations of trying to make money from its development, which he certainly wasn’t doing. In Tijuana, he turned the factory, built partly at his own expense, over to the Del Rio family. (The Del Rio family is prominent in Mexico, composed of nine sons, now all adults, all of them successful in a wide variety of businesses, including pharmaceuticals.) All that McNaughton insisted upon was the right to enter any Laetrile factory at any time of the day or night without notice and check the product as a matter of quality control. In the same way, McNaughton sought out the world lea-

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

97

ders in cancer research. In 1966, at a conference of the International Cancer Congress in Tokyo, he met Dr. Hans Nieper, a leading German internist. They talked about Laetrile; Dr. Nieper agreed to experiment with it. He soon established that Laetrile could be administered in much larger doses than were being used in Mexico. He also established that Laetrile could be used in conjunction with other chemotherapeutic modalities without any conflict. Before long, many Americans, especially Easterners, were going to Germany instead of Mexico. One of them was Alycia Buttons, wife of comedian Red Buttons, who disclosed in 1973 that Laetrile had brought her cancer under control. Red Buttons subsequently appeared as a witness for Laetrile at various public hearings. Another scientist McNaughton brought into the Laetrile sphere was Dr. Dean Burk. Dr. Burk was one of the founders of the National Cancer Institute and served for many years as head of its cytology department. Burk was world famous for his work and writings. He was also famous for being a maverick within the Cancer Establishment. He disliked bureaucracy, red tape and intellectual fudging, and he could be bluntly outspoken when he ran into any of these things. At N.C.I. he was surrounded by it all. Dr. Burke doesn’t remember this, but I met him for the first time early in 1963. The two magazine articles I had written for the weekend supplement had been submitted to him for an opinion. One morning, I went to Burk’s office at N.C.I. with the editor and managing editor of the magazine, and I soon discovered that Burk didn’t think much of what I had written. My impression was that the articles were not scientifically specific enough for him, but I had written for laymen and I saw no reason to muddy waters with a lot of big words. On the flight back to New York, I sensed that the editor was close to dropping the project, and he might have if Dr. Morrone’s report on ten cases had not appeared shortly thereafter in a medical publication (see Appendix OO). In any event, I told Andrew McNaughton how Dr. Burk had nearly killed off my magazine articles. McNaughton let some time pass, a few years perhaps, and then he wrote Burk a challenging letter, suggesting that if Burk wanted to find

98

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

out for himself what Letrile. could do he should conduct some experiments in his own laboratory. By this time, Dean Burk had forgotten my meeting with him. Also by this time, Laetrile had become a dirty word in the Cancer Establishment. But this did not dissuade Dr. Burk. He was the sort of man who insisted on coming to his own conclusions on any scientific matter that was put before him. He agreed to do some tests and McNaughton sent him a supply of Laetrile. Among the tests Burk conducted was this one: he put a quantity of live cancer cells into a Warburk flask with Laetrile and the enzyme betaglucosidase. He then stained the cancer cells with tryptan blue and placed them under a microscope where, he reported to McNaughton, he could “see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” A few weeks later, McNaughton was in New York, and he invited me to join him and his wife for dinner. In his hotel suite, McNaughton handed me a letter on N.C.I. stationery. I braced myself for some low blows. On the second page, I came upon the statement about the cancer cells dying off like flies. I glanced down at the signature: Dean Burk. I said: “This is the guy who almost killed off my magazine articles: McNaughton said: “I know. What do you think of him now?”

I said: “God love him.” With time, the worldwide controversy over Laetrile became so intense that the American Cancer Establishment could no longer sweep the subject under the rug. The moment came when the Establishment had to submit proof of its negative stand on Laetrile, and the particular branch of the Establishment involved was the National Cancer Institute. Some tests had to be done. Often these tests are not done at N.C.I. but are farmed out to leading research institutions across the country, such as Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research in New York and the Southern Research Institute in Alabama. Because of his position at N.C.I. and his personal professional stature, Dr. Burk saw the reports of such tests. He felt that some of the tests were inadequate. He felt that some of the findings were inconclusive. He

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

99

sometimes suspected that the findings were deliberately doctored to give the Establishment the negative results it wanted. Statistics from one test done by the Southern Research Institute were so elusive that Burk sent all the data to an expert in California, and the expert found that favorable and unfavorable findings were lumped together in a way that produced generally negative results that were not accurate (see Appendix QO). It was Dean Burk who, digging deep into the records, found out that although the F.D.A. banned bitter almonds in this country, the agency’s own publications listed extracts of bitter almonds as an approved substance for general use. Also, it was Burk who established that Laetrile, as Vitamin B-17, was a valid vitamin and therefore not subject to the F.D.A. regulations on new drugs. And it was Burk who determined that Laetrile could be taken orally, his research later duplicated and thereby seconded by Dr. Nieper in Germany. This was a giant step forward in Laetrile therapy, especially for patients on a maintenance dosage at home. The next time I met Dean Burk was years later in New York at a convention of the Foundation for Alternate Cancer Therapies. We were introduced to each other by Ernst Krebs Jr., in Krebs’ suite. Burk said: “I’ve been wanting to meet you for a long time. Do you know how many people have died needlessly because you say in your book that Laetrile cannot be taken orally?” I said: “Doctor, when I wrote that in 1963 it was the official position. I was right then, but Iam wrong now. That’s why I’m writing a new book. But do you know how many more people that might have died needlessly if you had succeeded in killing off my magazine articles?” He gave me a searching look. “What are you talking about?” ; I told him about my first meeting with him in 1963 in his office with the two editors from the weekend supplement. He had absolutely no recollection of the meeting at all and felt that his first contact with Laetrile didn’t occur until sev-

eral years later. The next time I was with Dean Burk was in the spring of

100

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

1977. I had just returned from another trip to Mexico, and I spent a day with Burk at his Washington, D.C. home as we discussed our observations and experiences. I asked him: “At what point did you become a Laetrile enthusiast?” He startled me with: “I am not a Laetrile enthusiast.” Then he said: “I’m not an enthusiast for anything. Isaac Newton did not become a gravity enthusiast once he estab-

lished the truth of that law. Iam a scientist. I accept facts.” But Dean Burk did more than accept the facts about Laetrile. He fought for them. As his own experience with Laetrile grew, he began writing long and scathing letters to his superiors at N.C.I., to officials at F.D.A., to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, to members of Congress, always being scientifically specific in his charges of the inadequacy of tests, of prejudice, of collusion, of outright dishonesty. A scientist of lesser stature would have been dumped very quickly. And when the matter of decriminalizing Laetrile began to go before state legislatures all over the country, Burk was always there to testify for Laetrile. And when radio and television talk-shows began giving increasing time to Laetrile discussions, Burk was always ready to confront the powerhouses of the Establishment. On one program, as a spokesman for the Establishment went into a tirade on everything that had been proven negative about Laetrile, Dean Burk just kept interjecting softly: “Liar. Liar.

Liar.” Laetrile needed people like Dean Burk. Meanwhile, Andrew McNaughton foresaw the increasing demand for Laetrile by Americans. The Contreras clinic and the Del Rio family Laetrile factory were operating at full capacity. Additional facilities were necessary. But there was something else McNaughton wanted to settle. One of the criticisms launched by the American Cancer Establishment was that although Laetrile was being used legally in about thirty different countries, not one of those countries had officially approved Laetrile. The F.D.A. said that the trouble with those countries was that they did not have an F.D.A. of their own to set standards. In itself, this was a good thing. Actually, the general practice is for a foreign country to base

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

101

its official approval of a medication on the status of the substance in the country of origin’ Laetrile was developed in the United States, where its official status was nil, so it was simpler for other countries to tolerate the use of Laetrile within their borders without officially approving it and then have to go to the mat with the American Cancer Establishment which was already interfering with international medicine more than the C.I.A. was interfering in international politics. McNaughton wanted to change this. Through friends in science, he learned that one of the most qualified oncologists in Latin America was Dr. Mario Soto, a Guatemalan then practicing in Mexico. Dr. Soto is certified by the U.S. National Cancer Institute to test new cancer medications in human trials, his findings accepted as valid. He holds an American passport to facilitate his travels in this country. McNaughton went to Dr. Soto and asked him if he would conduct human trials with Laetrile, provided the Mexican government approved. The doctor said yes. Together, the two of them went through channels in the Mexican government to get the approval of the health officials. The trials were done at a large hospital in Mexico City. The results were positive. The Mexican health officials accepted this, but the National Cancer Society ignored it, even though the work was done by one of their own men. Then George Del Rio and McNaughton became convinced that a second Laetrile clinic was needed in Tijuana. The Del Rios and McNaughton raised much of the money; the Mexican Government put up the rest. The Del Rios and McNaughton did the designing and set the policy for the new clinic, Clinica Cydel, and Dr. Mario Soto was persuaded to give up his lucrative practice in Mexico City and become the Chief of Medicine. As usual, McNaughton has no financial interest in the operation of the clinic which provides him with a permanent office and a secretary within its facilities. Here at Clinica Cydel, McNaughton lectures to patients from both of the Mexican clinics and cooperates with the staff of the clinic of the development of the holistic approach to the metabolic therapy of cancer with Laetrile. With so many patients in Mexico and the United States

102

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

dependent on Mexican production for their Laetrile requirements it soon became apparent that a second local Laetrile factory would be a good insurance against a possible disaster. With McNaughton as a consultant, a Laetrile factory was constructed for the Contreras clinic. So now there are two independent factories and clinics in the Tijuana area. Recently, Clinica Cydel has opened a branch clinic in downtown Tijuana and another in Mexico City. Here pa-

tients who are members of the Mexican Government Social Insurance programs are treated with Laetrile. The Del Rio brothers are presently constructing a modern new pharmaceutical factory on the outskirts of Tijuana. When completed, this factory will produce not only Laetrile but also a wide range of other pharmaceutical products. The Clinica Cydel stands on a hilltop at the edge of Tijuana, overlooking a highway that leads to the sea, a few miles away. From the outside, the clinic looks like a Spanishtype motel. There is a lovely garden with a fountain where the patients can enjoy the sunshine. When I was there in April 1977, I got the same feéling I had earlier at Dr. Contreras’ clinic. This was no Mecca for the doomed. This was no last resort for terminal cancer patients seeking some way to die with dignity, without becoming dope addicts. These were people expecting to live, and to live without cancer. One man told me: “A month ago, I was scheduled to go into a hospital for surgery. There wasn’t much hope for me. Then my son heard about Laetrile, and I decided to try it. I don’t know if this stuff is psychological or what. I just know that I feel great. I can’t believe it.” At both the Clinica Cydel and the Contreras clinic, patients undergo three series of eight-day cycles of treatment. At the end of each eight days, the patient is given a thorough medical examination to determine whether the tempo of therapy should be increased or whether the therapy is doing any good at all. One morning I was in McNaughton’s office in the clinic when an American woman came in to fill out the forms necessary for her to bring Laetrile into the U.S. legally under the class-action court order issued by Judge Bohanon. The patient was her husband. He had undergone the full

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

103

three series of treatment, and they were heading home after ‘ lunch. I asked her: “Would you mind telling me what your bill was here at the clinic?” **For everything?” “If you don’t mind.” ““We’ve been here over three weeks,” she said, “‘and the bill I paid this morning came to around twelve hundred dollars.” I asked: “Do you consider that excessive?” “Well,” she said, “about a year ago we paid about five times that amount for surgery in a hospital at home where my husband stayed for ten days. It didn’t do him much good or we wouldn’t be here now.” I asked: “Do you think any good has been done for him here?” “T don’t know,” she said. ‘He says he feels better. He can walk again. But I know he’s got terminal cancer, and I’m not expecting any miracles.” These were wise words. For years, the American Cancer Establishment has been charging that Laetrilists have been making fortunes off the material. I think I know the Laetrile pioneers better than anyone in the Establishment does, and I have not seen any evidence of wealth. There were accusations for a while that McNaughton had purchased a mansion on the beach near Tijuana. McNaughton lives in a second-hand mobile home near Tijuana. When he bought it, it was delivered to the wrong site and he had to pay extra money to have it moved several miles where he could connect up for water and electricity. In Mexico, McNaughton drives a British two-seater in which I have been a passenger many times over many years. It is not a new car. In San Francisco, McNaughton keeps a battered 1954 Volkswagen in the Krebs’ garage and he stays at the Krebs’ home partly because he cannot afford a hotel or a place of his own. He spends as much of his time as possible in a one-room cabin on a mountaintop near Sausalito lent to him by the owner. The place has no electricity, no telephone, no running water, no plumbing, no heat except a fireplace which also serves as a stove. To get there, McNaughton drives

104

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

his Volkswagen at top speed up the side of the mountain on a one-lane, unpaved path that has no safety guards but a lot of sharp, uphill turns overlooking the valley far below. This is a harrowing experience which I have had once and have no intentions of ever having again. But McNaughton loves the place because of its peace, quiet and privacy, none of which stands much chance of being invaded, as it is in the center of a state park. Even so, this is hardly the manner to which McNaughton was born, in which he was raised, and which he lived for more than half of his life, until Laetrile made him delinquent on his charge accounts. If Ernst T. Krebs Jr. has any money, he either inherited it or it comes from royalties from other medications which his father developed or the two of them developed together. Krebs drives a station wagon that can just about survive the San Francisco hills. His home has a certain majesty, mostly because it is old and was so well-built. It is also always cold in there. One day in October 1977, I had lunch in the Krebs home. Present were Krebs, his assistant, his housekeeper, McNaughton, a young woman doing graduate work in bio-

chemistry and two other writers. The food came from the Kentucky. Colonel Chicken take-out place around the corner, hardly a proper lunch in the home of a millionaire. The next day for lunch we had leftovers. Both Krebs and McNaughton have repeatedly assured me that they have not made a penny off Laetrile. In a way, they can’t. Laetrile is extractable from a wide variety of foodstuffs that often grow wild all over the world, and there is no way to put a patent on the formula. Dean Burk once told me that it is harder to make a bad batch of Laetrile than a good batch - - and many other people have done both. Also, several gigantic pharmaceutical companies in this country are ready to go into the production of Laetrile, under McNaughton’s severe quality control supervision, but they are reluctant to do so as long as the Cancer Establishment won’t let them put it on the market. And there was this: No informed proponent of Laetrile has ever referred to it as a cure for cancer. It isn’t. Indications are that Laetrile is a control of cancer, perhaps even a

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

105

preventive. It appears that Laetrile becomes a component in the chemistry of the body’s natural defenses against cancer and acts as an adjunct in that chemistry when the body’s defenses fail. Laetrile, then, is a factor in the destruction of cancer cells. But that is not enough. Cancer, it seems, is a disease of neglect. As we grow older, we take less care of ourselves, physically, mentally, spiritually. We do the same with our cars. If we don’t change oil on time, if we don’t have regular check-ups or tune-ups, if we don’t see a mechanic about every new noise, if we don’t watch the condition of the tires and brakes, we are only asking for trouble. So with our bodies. True, cancer rates high as a killer of the young, but it is generally regarded as a condition of aging. When the Clinica Cydel opened, its brochures announced that it would be a center for the holistic concept of medicine. Holism is a theory of philosophy which maintains that a material object, especially a living organism, has a reality other and greater than the sum of its constituent parts. In other words, there is more to you than you add up to. In terms of cancer therapy, more than the malignancy has to be treated. A special diet is required. A special regimen of vitamins is required. Regular exercise is required. The development of a positive attitude, of self-confidence, is required. As McNaughton puts it: “Fighters live; quitters die.” He feels that the patient is part of the treatment and must take part in it. When the Establishment accuses that Laetrile gives cancer patients false hopes, McNaughton argues that a false hope is better than no hope. Perhaps it was this holistic approach that resulted in the high morale I saw at the Mexican clinics. The Establishment also accuses that Laetrile is dangerous because it turns patients away from approved modalities to one that is not approved. The Mexican Clinics rarely receive a cancer patient who has not already undergone treatment by one approved modality, usually more than one, and the patient still has cancer. Still, Laetrile is no magic bullet. McNaughton is firmly clear about that with new Laetrile patients. And the statistics back him up. Traditionally, a cancer patient who survives five years after orthodox treatment and shows no evi-

106

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

dence of recurrence is considered cured. Dr. Contreras has a number of Laetrile patients who have gone six and seven years without recurrence. Both he and Dr. Soto feel that they have objective results with about 15 percent of their terminal patients. The percentage of success is in inverse proportion to the amount of damage the cancer has already done and the amount of damage done by the approved modalities. Many patients who did not survive five years nevertheless did not die from cancer but from the failure of their damaged organs. On the other hand, many patients have survived well beyond the prognosis with which they arrived. With time, the ranks of the Laetrile pioneers thinned. Arthur Harris was dead. Edward Spicer died. Dr. Krebs Sr. died. Cecile Hoffman died. In her will, Mrs. Hoffman instructed that a thorough autopsy should be made of her body to see if any cancer was present. The autopsy was done. There was no cancer. Dr. Morrone died. Jacqueline, McNaughton’s lovely wife and dedicated co-worker, died. Dr. Ian MacDonald, the man who made me empty my wallet in his office before he would talk to me, died of self-immolation when he fell asleep with a burning cigarette in his hand. Dr. Garland, the San Francisco radiologist who helped himself on the sly to a couple of ampules of Laetrile in the Krebs laboratory, died of cancer. And yet no vacuums developed. The groundwork had been so well-laid that new people kept coming along who were qualified and eager to carry on the crusade. Many of

them belonged to the organizations to which this book is dedicated. Year after year, the program picked up steam, attracting memberships of many thousands, holding monthly meetings and annual conventions in major cities. Krebs Jr. and Dean Burk became popular speakers at these events. I spoke a couple of times, limiting my comments, as I have in this book, to the adventure of Laetrile, leaving scientific and political debates to the more qualified. One such qualified person was Dr. John A. Richardson, practicing in Albany, California. Despite the California ban on Laetrile, Dr. Richardson turned to it when he decided there was nothing elSe he could do for his cancer patients

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

107

and, that as a physician, he had the right to use any medication he felt might do some good. His results were dramatic. One patient, for example, was a man in his forties who underwent surgery that showed he had cancer of the intestines. The growth was so extensive that it was considered unremovable. The surgeon performed a colostomy. To play safe, the patient went to Dr. Richardson for Laetrile therapy for severFurther surgery showed that the malignant secal months. tion of the man’s intestines was now totally free of cancer. The patient’s intestines were rejoined surgically, the colostomy was closed, and the man regained his normal eliminatory process. News like this gets around.

Before long, Dr. Richardson’s office was full of people seeking Laetrile, and he gave it to them. Before long, Dr. Richardson had to enlarge his facilities and his staff. And before long, Dr. Richardson was arrested. Editing two newspapers in the area was a bright young man named Michael Culbert. Up to this point, Culbert had kept his paper’s coverage of Richardson’s work impartial and factual. “But,” Culbert told me in San Francisco in 1977, “when they arrested Dr. Richardson, that did it for me.” It so happened that Dr. Richardson was a member of the John Birch Society, as were several of his friends. Aware of the heavy legal expenses Dr. Richardson faced, his friends formed an ad hoc committee to raise funds to help him pay his bills. Out of this developed the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy, Inc., with a monthly publication called Choice, with Michael Culbert as editor. Culbert told me: “When we were satisfied that the Laetrile controversy was not scientific but political, we decided to enter the political arena ourselves.” Although the Committee had a John Birch core at the start, it expanded rapidly and soon encompassed close to 50,000 members of all sections of the political spectrum, including people who had marched on the White House against the Vietnam War and were shot at by National Guardsmen at university demonstrations. State chapters of the Committee were established across the country, their members approach-

108

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

ing their representatives in the state legislature for the purpose of having Laetrile decriminalized within the state. Other things were happening: A cancer patient named Glen Rutherford went into U.S. Federal Court in Oklahoma City to request permission to import Laetrile from Mexico for his own use. Judge Luther Bohanon granted that permission. Within a few months, other Federal judges in other parts of the country were giving terminal cancer patients the same permission. But this was a costly and time-consuming process. Lawyers for the Committee for Freedom asked Judge Bohanon to expand his individual permission for Glen Rutherford to a class-action court order that would allow any certified terminal cancer patient either to import Laetrile from Mexico himself or have it mailed to him from San Ysidro, California. Judge Bohanon agreed. The order went into effect in April 1977, and I was a witness to the first import of Laetrile into the country under it. In Canada, meanwhile, the anti-Laetrile pressures were easing. When Canadians seeking Laetrile wrote their government for approval, they received a form letter stating that although Canada did not approve Laetrile, it would be all right for the patient to have Laetrile shipped to a doctor who could use it without prosecution. Moreover, Canadian doctors started going to Mexico to learn the Laetrile protocols. And under the sponsorship of the Committee for Freedom, Krebs conducted seminars all over the country for American doctors. In New York City, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a highly respected scientist at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, was asked to test Laetrile on laboratory mice on a grant from the National Cancer Institute. He conducted a series of tests over a period of a couple of years. His findings: although Laetrile did not prevent cancers in the cancer-prone mice, it did prevent metastases (second growths) in many of them, something Dr. Sugiura had never observed before. Also, the cancer-prone mice treated with Laetrile developed their cancers later than mice not treated and therefore lived longer. When Dr. Sugiura submitted his report to his superiors, it

somehow got lost in somebody’s bottom drawer.

Working

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

109

at Sloan-Kettering were other scientists and laymen who knew about Suguira’s results, ahd they began to suspect a cover-up. News of the report somehow reached the press and hit the front pages. Officials at Sloan-Kettering denied that there had been any cover-up. They claimed that other scientists had been unable to duplicate Sugiura’s work and therefore it could not be considered to be scientifically accurate. This was news to Dr. Suguira; nothing like it had ever happened to him before. Also, it was not true. His results had been confirmed by at least one other research center. The concerned employees at Sloan-Kettering thereupon formed what they called Second Opinion, by which, through newsletters, they intended to disclose to the public anything that looked like a cover-up at Sloan-Kettering, whether it was the falsification of findings or merely a neglect to make certain findings known. Membership in the underground movement was secret; the only known member was Alec Pruchnicki, a biochemistry graduate student who did not work at Sloan-Kettering and was thus able to speak for the group without harrassment. Late in 1977, it became known that Sloan-Kettering would issue its negative findings on Laetrile soon after the first of the year. Members of Second Opinion, some of whom had worked on the Sloan-Kettering report, decided to jump the gun by issuing their rebuttal to the report at a press conference beforehand. Dr. Ralph Moss, whose doctorate is in the classics and who worked at Sloan-Kettering as assistant director of public affairs, was instructed to attend the Second Opinion press conference and make a list of other Sloan-Kettering employees who were there. He refused to become a spy and, as a “matter of conscience,” he said, he revealed that not only was he a member of Second Opinion, but he had helped write its rebuttal. He was fired. Oddly enough, this happened despite the fact that, over the years, both Ernst Krebs Jr. and Andrew McNaughton had been invited to Sloan-Kettering for conferences on Laetrile. McNaughton was appointed to a Sloan-Kettering advisory committee. Krebs once told me: “At one point, I always had to use an assumed name when I checked into a New

110

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

York hotel because I didn’t want the Sloan-Kettering people to find me. This time, I not only used my own name, but Sloan-Kettering sent over a car to pick me up.” Moreover, one of the top men at Sloan-Kettering was quoted in the New York Times: “Although we have had no positive results in our own work with Laetrile, we would not be opposed to the use of Laetrile in terminal cancers when all other modalities have failed.”’ Also, the same man later conceded that maybe mice were not.a proper yardstick to judge Laetrile because mice don’t respond to holistic therapy. Meanwhile, in Chicago, Dr. Harold Manners, head of the biology department at Loyola University, did research with a number of graduate students and achieved a “100 percent” response in breast cancer in test mice with a metabolic program of protein-digesting enzymes and Vitamin A and Laetrile. When Dr. Manners was ready to announce his results, he could not find a scientific publisher or a scientific platform. Instead, he disclosed his findings at a convention of the National Health Federation. He was severely criticized by the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society for not first submitting his results in writing to his peers. He had tried that, without any luck. He also didn’t have much luck getting news coverage for his report. He did manage to get about a minute on one of the television networks, but there was nothing in the press although reporters from major newspapers and the wire services were present. The doctor told me: “I had no idea there could be such a complete news blackout.” I remembered that Dr. Guidetti had said the same thing about the bleak American coverage years before of his report to the International Cancer Congress in Brazil, and I wondered if maybe those luxurious press junkets sponsored every year by the American Cancer Society were really paying off. Pertinently, just about the same time, a doctor in Denver was getting fed up with the numerous flash bulletins from the F.D.A. that this substance or that substance could cause cancer and should be banned. The doctor acquired some cancerprone mice and implanted a dime - - an ordinary U.S. tencent piece - - under the skin of each mouse. In a few weeks,

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

111

the mice all had cancer. The doctor wrote a serious scientific report which he called: “MONEY CAUSES CANCER - BAN IT!” and he actually got it published in a reputable medical journal. He caught hell from his peers for fooling around with such a serious subject. It was a serious subject, but there was still a lot of fooling around. Dr. Richardson, for example, had to stand trial three times, the third trial ending with a hung jury. Richardson was also convicted for being a party to the smuggling of Laetrile into the United States and had to pay a fine of $20,000. Fined for $40,000 was Robert W. Bradford, formerly a scientist at Stanford University, who left the school to become president of the Committee for Freedom of Choice. Andrew McNaughton got caught in the legal crossfire. He was charged with masterminding the smuggling operations. In the course of plea bargaining, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, which the U.S. Department of Justice accepted without asking for a fine or a jail sentence. Instead, he was sentenced to two years on probation. Then the presiding judge issued a judicial recommendation against McNaughton’s deportation. As for me, after years of paying my income tax without any problems, in 1964, after my Laetrile book came out, I was summoned by the Internal Revenue Service for an audit. Several thousand dollars in business expenses had been disallowed. It took three years of frequent meetings for me to justify practically all of the expenses. I didn’t have to go through anything like that again until 1974. The year before, I had collaborated with a former Washington lobbyist on a book about corruption in Congress. I was summoned for another audit, and there went another three years. I remember, while we were working on the book, most of the corruption stories the lobbyist told me involved the Democrats. I told him: “Listen, don’t you have any stories about Republicans? People are going to think this book is slanted.” President Nixon was in office at the time, and the lobbyist told me: “I’ve got plenty on the Republicans. But you never hit them while they’re in office. They can throw the book at you.” Not long after that, President

Nixon

got the book thrown at him because of Watergate.

112

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

I now believe that the American people are no longer shocked to learn that their elected government leaders lie to them, that the heads of public and private health institutions tell lies. We are growing up, and in the process of growing up we will tolerate less and less of the lying and start throwing

the book ourselves.

i

For instance, in the summer of 1977, when the question of decriminalizing Laetrile was before the California legislature, Dr. Donald Kennedy, heading the F.D.A., announced at a press conference that samples of Laetrile acquired by his agency turned out to be contaminated and short-weighted and could be fatal. This was no surprise. Laetrile was being bootlegged by fly-by-night laboratories all over the country

with no effort at quality control. Andrew McNaughton immediately wrote Kennedy and, conceding that Kennedy was probably right, pointed out that this situation would never have come about if the F.D.A. would approve Laetrile and set the quality control standards at top grade pharmaceutical companies. Kennedy replied that he could hardly do this until Laetrile met F.D.A. regulations for safety and efficacy, which, he said, McNaughton

had declined to have done. This

was a transparent dodge. From the moment he entered the Laetrile scene, McNaughton insisted on adhering to government regulations, whatever the country. In 1970, at great cost to himself, McNaughton had the animal work done at a first-rate laboratory to establish the safety and efficacy of Laetrile. Volumes of statistical material were submitted to the F.D.A. in order to obtain an IND number (Investigative New Drug), which would have authorized human trials. An IND number was granted. But within ten days, McNaughton was notified by the F.D.A. that the number had been withdrawn due to certain deficiencies in his material. He was given three or four days to submit the needed information. This was absolutely impossible. The application was dropped. There was more to it. The Congressional act which gave the F.D.A. the authority to judge new drugs on the basis of safety and efficacy contained a specification to the effect that any unapproved drug in use for a given number of years

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

113

prior to the new regulation and without established evidence of harmful side effects would be exempt from the new regulation. This became known as the grandfather clause, and Laetrile, already in use for thirty years, clearly qualified. By referring to Laetrile as a new drug subject to the new regulations, Donald Kennedy was blatantly ignoring this. Fortunately, not everybody else did. First this: Born and raised and educated in Israel is a scientist named David Ruben, a surgeon-turned-cancer researcher. Dr. Rubin heard about Laetrile, including the controversy, and he went to Mexico to find out about it for himself. Afterward, he made a trip across the United States, meeting scientists on both sides of the battle. Laetrile was sent to him in Israel. He conducted experiments with it, making some modifications in the molecule. His first Laetrile patient was an elderly woman who had been one of his professors in medical school. The woman had cancer of the breasts, with metastases the size and firmness of golf balls. The woman didn’t want to use Laetrile at first, until she learned she had a week left to live. Then she changed her mind, provided her personal physician could be present. Dr. Rubin said that was what he wanted, too. Overnight the patient experienced a total reversal. The metastases had decreased in size and firmness. The pain was gone. Her own doctor said he would use Laetrile with his own patients from then on. Brought into being was the Israel Medical Research Foundation for the sole purpose of exploring the use of Laetrile. Heading the foundation was Al Schwimmer, who had been director of the Israel Aviation Industries, the largest civilian employer in the country, a position he resigned in order to supervise the new foundation. Dr. Rubin expected to be able to publish his first case histories in 1978, an event which certainly would have an international impact. I met Dr. Rubin in New York in the summer of 1977. After our talk, his next stop was Sloan-Kettering. I never learned what the reaction to him was there. However, I did learn that the American Cancer Establishment attempted to discredit Dr. Rubin in his own country. It didn’t work. Something else didn’t work. After Judge Bohanon issued

114

LAETRILE :Nutritional Control for Cancer

his class-action court order in early 1977 for the importation of Laetrile by American terminal cancer patients, the F.D.A. and other government agencies appealed his decision. The higher court denied the appeal and the case went back to Judge Bohanon. The Judge granted the government agencies three months to prepare a position paper on their stand against Laetrile, something, surprisingly, they had not done over all their years of battle against Laetrile. A two-day public hearing was held in Kansas City, and out of it came a transcript of more than five thousand pages. This was condensed and submitted to Judge Bohanon. In December 1977, Judge Bohanon issued a permanent injunction against the F.D.A. and other government agencies, ordering them not to interfere any longer in the importation of Laetrile, with its manufacture and use in this country and with its interstate shipments. His decision was partly based on the grandfather clause exemption. I couldn’t believe it. Suddenly Laetrile was legal in the United States. For everyone. Understandably, the government agencies said they would appeal. But they did not seem to have much room for action. They appealed for a “‘stay” order on the injunction until they could get the matter before the United States Supreme Court. The appeal was denied. And certainly it would take at least two years to get the argument before the Supreme Court. Since the argument was not scientific but a matter of the freedom of choice, there was little chance that the Supreme Court would touch it. Meanwhile, Laetrile would remain legal. I couldn’t believe it. Then the National Cancer Institute came up with something new. They said that if doctors could submit enough case histories to indicate that Laetrile works, they would consider conducting human trials. The Laetrilists were more than ready to cooperate. However, opposition to the study came from within the Establishment when the New England Journal of Medicine published an article that said that no

matter what the results of the study might be one side or the

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

115

other would not accept them, so the whole effort would be for nothing. On January 29,1978, The New York Times made this point in an editorial: “NO CURE FOR LAETRILE. “The National Cancer Institute has launched an evaluation of Laetrile that may, as one expert aptly put it, be ‘doomed to failure.” The Institute is asking all doctors who believe their patients have responded favorably to Laetrile to submit the case records for analysis; patients who believe Laetrile has helped them are asked to urge their doctors to comply. The goal is to determine whether there is any documentation that Laetrile is effective in reducing the size of tumors or otherwise combating cancer. But this review may backfire and make it impossible to conduct the full-fledged clinical trial that offers the best hope of resolving, once and for all, whether the controversial substance made from apricot pits has any value whatsoever. “The Cancer Institute’s reluctance to conduct a clinical trial is understandable. Laetrile has been tested many times in animals, with negative results. The few tests that seemed to show anti-cancer activity could not be reproduced, making the results dubious. And the cases of humans who have supposedly been helped by Laetrile are poorly documented; it is often impossible to tell whether the patients in fact had cancer to begin with. If Laetrile were an ordinary drug, the evidence would be considered too scant to warrant further testing. ‘Ethical considerations also interfere with a clinical trial. Presumably one group of patients would be treated solely with Laetrile while another group receives conventional therapies. But how can doctors who believe Laetrile to be worthless — and perhaps toxic, too — give it to patients who would almost certainly die if the doctors are right? “Many scientists are reluctant also to undermine the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. Ordinarily, the F.D.A. will not allow drug tests on humans unless there is evidence, usually from animal studies, that the drug could be ef-

fective and safe. The agency says no evidence exists for Laetrile’s effectiveness. If it were now persuaded, or pressured,

116

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

to allow a clinical trial anyway, would this open the gates to quack remedies and subvert the regulations on which public safety depends? “We recognize the legitimacy of these concerns. But Laetrile is no ordinary drug. Despite all the scientific skepticism, some 75,000 Americans are using it, 14 states have legalized its use and 27 more states are expected to consider doing so this year. A Federal judge has ruled that terminal cancer patients may import Laetrile for their own use and that the F.D.A. may not interfere with its distribution. If upheld on appeal, that decision would effectively legalize it nationally. Reliable polls show large majorities of Americans favoring legalization. Laetrile can no longer be dismissed as a quack medicine whose popularity will wane. “A clinical trial should therefore be conducted—preferably with the help of both sides in the Laetrile argument. The findings of a well-controlled study would presumably be accepted by all but the zealots on each side and would offer valuable guidance to legislators and judges. There is always the possibility that Laetrile does have some value in reducing cancer or erasing such symptoms as pain or nausea. Animal tests are not perfect predictors of how drugs will act on humans. No less an authority than Guy Newell, the acting director of the National Cancer Institute, said he finds it hard to believe that 50,000 or 75,000 Americans are all wrong in their belief that Laetrile helps. The ethical objections to a trial could be eased by using volunteers and fully instructing them in the risks; many would undoubtedly use Laetrile on their own anyway. The risk of circumventing F.D.A. procedures seems worth taking. “Unfortunately, the case history review launched by the Cancer Institute will not resolve the central issues in this controversy. It will simply determine whether there is enough evidence of beneficial effect to justify a clinical trial. But if no such evidence is found, the case for a clinical trial would be further weakened. That may be good science, but is bad politics and bad social policy. The public is entitled to all the data possible on a drug whose use seems destined to spread.”

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

ay

So what is ahead for Laetrile? I put the question to Andrew McNaughton, and he replied: “Prophecy is essentially a hazardous undertaking. In theory, one can extrapolate the pattern of the past, allow for known potential discontinuities, and arrive at a broad outline of the probable future. Of course, the accuracy of such a forecast will be a function, among other things, of the effects of discontinuities as yet unperceived. It is with this caveat that the following guesstimates are offered. “First, the A.M.A., the F.D.A., and the N.C.I. Here cracks in the solidarity of the opposition to Laetrile are even now apparent. In the short-term future these cracks will widen. The American Medical Association, facing the expanding utilization by their members of Laetrile and the metabolic concepts, will find it good politics to come to terms with the problem. Properly influenced by thoughtful and informed physicians, the A.M.A. will push the National Cancer Institute and the other cancer research institutes to take a serious look at the claims of the Laetrile proponents. First may come the currently planned retrospective study of cancer patients previously treated with Laetrile. The results of this study may well be inconclusive since the criteria proposed for the evaluation of the effects of Laetrile in these patients are, to a considerable degree, inappropriate. Nevertheless, enough of interest will emerge to lead, after a period of controversy, to the acceptance of more appropriate criteria and further investigations. “Should, as is probable, the results of the joint MexicanIsraeli biochemical and clinical studies with vastly improved forms of Laetrile be published in reputable journals in 1979, this will provide an irresistible impetus to the investigations by the cancer orthodoxy in this country. This impetus will be further strengthened by the coming publication of the results of the treatment of more than 3,500 patients in Indonesia with a form of Laetrile derived from the local cassava root.

“The leaders of the American Cancer Society, having handled the Laetrile controversy in an immature and irresponsible manner, have reduced their already vastly depleted

118

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

credibility to the vanishing point. Signs now are that, in their 1979 rip-off of the public, they will become openly schizophrenic as they maladroitly attempt to adopt some of the ideas of the Laetrile proponents while at the same time rejecting other inseparable concepts. “It is a characteristic of humans that the catalyst which frequently speeds the acceptance of revolutionary changes, in medicine as well as in politics, is the identification of a whipping boy. Increasingly, the leaders of the American Cancer Society are qualifying for this position. In fact, this may turn out to be their greatest contribution to a public which has so long and so undeservedly supported them. “This is an interesting area for speculation. Will the American Cancer Society long survive the growing public scrutiny of its outrageous financial practices? Will an informed and aroused public demand, as a price for their continued support, a controlling voice in determining the direction in which their funds are being spent? Should the A.C:S. be permitted to survive? Does it really serve the best interests of the people who support it with their hundreds of millions in donations? Drastic and long overdue changes within the American. Cancer Society are inevitable. With a reorganized A.C.S. no longer blocking progress, the cancer research establishment will be free to act on the dawning realization. that research into Laetrile, Vitamin C, and other nontoxic concepts is the way to influence the taxpayers whose elected representatives determine the research budgets. Thus, in a short span of years, the orientation of cancer research in this country could well be shifted into more productive areas. “After the expenditure of billions of research dollars without a solution, imagine the embarrassment should a useful approach to the prevention or treatment of cancer originate from outside the Establishment. For those who, like the American Cancer Society, have fought tooth and nail over the years to prevent a proper evaluation of Laetrile and other interesting approaches, this embarrassment could be mortal. In old Japan those officials responsible would have expiated their sins by resorting to hari-kari. Perhaps it would be not altogether a bad idea to clear away some of the deadwood in

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

119

in this manner. “Dominated as it is by the industries it was supposed to regulate, the Food and Drug Administration has its own problems. How else explain the omnipresent alcoholism, the smoking-related cancer and cardiovascular diseases, the addition of fluorides to public drinking waters, the permissible food contaminants, pesticides, tranquilizers, and so on through that familiar and dismal litany? Perhaps, to paraphrase President Carter, an indifferent citizenry, lacking personal involvement, soon acquires the bureaucracies and public morality it deserves. Nevertheless, as witnessed by the legislative and judicial success of Laetrile these past few years, it is one of the strengths of our political system that when enough citizens are willing themselves to work for a change, change comes about. 1978 will be the crucial year not only for political and judicial decisions but also for the beginnings of clinical demonstrations within the U.S.A. of the effectiveness of the holistic approach to the metabolic therapy of cancer with Laetrile. “Now that the Federal and State courts and legislatures are legalizing the use of Laetrile, it is important that all understand this does not mean that Laetrile should not be subject to appropriate regulatory control at state and federal levels. It is a proper function of the F.D.A. to be concerned with the potency, identity, and purity of all foods and drugs offered to the people of this country. It is also a proper

function for the F.D.A. to ensure that the degree of safety of substances proposed for use in the treatment or prevention of disease be well understood. Thereafter the physicians should be given much greater latitude to use in accordance with their clinical judgment in each individual case. Signs ofa trend in this direction have already appeared. In 1978 this trend will strengthen somewhat. “Presently almost all of the Laetrile used in this country comes from abroad. Even thougli now legal federally and in many states, reputable pharmaceutical companies are intimidated by the Food and Drug Administration from commencing production here. Should such a company show signs of interest in Laetrile production, the F.D.A. soon makes it

120

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

clear in many ways that, while legal, such production will lead to all sorts of harassment of the company’s normal operations. Asa result, a number of shoestring production operations are now contemplated. This is not in the interest of the orderly development of Laetrile. Fortunately, more than one major pharmaceutical company, emboldened by the success of Laetrile in 1977, is seriously considering braving the wrath of the F.D.A. and commencing production of Laetrile in 1978. It is important that Laetrile enter the mainstream of American medicine and pharmaceutical production as soon as possible. As in any revolution, the revolutionaries should be slowly phased out as the goals of the revolution become secure. “In 1978, more emphasis will commence to be given to the concept of cancer prevention with Laetrile from a holistic viewpoint. While the treatment of cancer in 1978 will see the development of more effective Laetriles than the Amygdalin currently in use, the prevention of cancer, as opposed to its therapy, calls for natural Laetriles as components or supplements to the normal diet. Here we will see the increasing use of Laetrile-Amygdalin as present in the whole seeds without processing, except, perhaps, for the removal of some of the fat content. Both of these developments are close to becoming realities. ‘All in all, while the opposition to the use of the Laetriles still remains virulent, emotional and dollar-oriented, the end of the beginning has been passed and the beginning of the end is in sight.” But then something happened that McNaughton could not foresee. All along, Krebs Jr. had been insisting that the trophoblast cell and the cancer cell were one and the same. All along, the Cancer Establishment ridiculed the idea. Even some of the strongest supporters of Laetrile felt that the John Beard trophoblastic identification of the cancer cell wasn’t of critical importance. Krebs, on the other hand, argued that, without Beard’s work, he and his father and Dr. Gurchot would not have been able to develop the chemical formula that would make Laetrile effective against cancer cells.

The Victory of Laetrile and Its Future

121

Then, in the issue of March 8, 1978, the Medical Tribune published a front-page story abdut the research by two Pennsylvania scientists that supported Krebs - - and John Beard - completely. Dr. Herman F. Acevedo and Dr. Malcolm Slifkin, working with ultra-modern equipment at the University of Pennsylvania, identified a protein antigen which they could find only in cancer cells and in trophoblast cells. Dr. Acevedo said: ‘The accepted view is that the word ‘cancer’ is a poorly defined concept useful for classifying hundreds of malignant diseases. If these diseases stem from different causes, a general immunological approach would be impossible. This common antigen, however, could open the way to a vaccine or general treatment for cancer.” Acknowledging the Establishment’s rejection of the trophoblastic theory, Dr. Acevedo said: “Pieces of the puzzle are slowly coming together, but so far the scientific community has been reluctant to accept what this evidence implies. But they will - - they’ll have to.” And he said: ‘Life itself is a random process - - and cancer is part of life. It is poetic that the protein that allows life to thrive in the womb is the one that kills you.” When the news reached Andrew McNaughton, he said: “This is probably the most important Laetrile report for many a year.” Ernst T. Krebs Jr. said: ‘What has been a theory for almost eighty years is now a scientific fact, a fact that Laetrilists have promulgated all along.” To amend Dr. Acevedo, the protein that allows life to thrive in the womb need no longer kill you or anybody else. The human race has lost its oldest enemy.

It has been a rare privilege and a great adventure for me to observe, over the past twenty-five years, the Laetrile crusade to victory. It has been a crusade with many heroes and heroines. But it has also been a crusade in which thousands of unheralded believers fought ceaselessly and contributed vi-

122

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

tally to the ultimate victory. These believers are the founders, the leaders and the members of the organizations to which this book is dedicated. Because of their steadfastness, the world is losing a certain fear: the fear of cancer. Sucha victory is unparalleled in history, for such a victory has never occurred before. In this victory, we are all winners.

CHAPTER 11 Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

Besides taking Vitamin B-17 everyday in the form of Laetrile tablets or apricot kernels, you can find the vitamin in hundreds of foods that are available in your neighborhood health food store and supermarket. The following lists of Vitamin B-17-containing foods and suggestions for Vitamin B-17 meals are taken from “The Little Cyanide Cookbook,” by June de Spain, a California nutritionist, published by American Media, Westlake, California, and used with permission. The range is based on these measurements: High—500 milligrams nitriloside per 100 grams of food. Medium—above 100 mgs. per 100 grams Low —below 100 mgs. per 100 grams food

FRUITS blackberry, domestic blackberry, wild boysenberry choke cherry wild crabapple market cranberry Swedish (lignon)cranberry currant elderberry gooseberry huckleberry loganberry mulberry

123

RANGE low high medium high high low high medium medium to high medium medium medium medium

food

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

quince raspberry

SEEDS apple seeds apricot seed cherry seed nectarine seed peach seed pear seed plum seed prune seed squash seed BEANS black black-eyed peas fava garbanzo green pea kidney lentils lima, U.S. lima, Burma mung shell TUBERS cassava sweet potato yams

medium medium

high high high high high high high

high medium

low low to medium high low to medium low low to medium medium low medium medium to high low

high low low

NUTS (all raw) bitter almond cashew macadamia

high low medium to high

SPROUTS alfalfa

medium

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday bamboo

¥

125

medium

fava garbanzo mung

medium medium medium

LEAVES alfalfa eucalyptus spinach water cress

high high low low

Following are some recipe suggestions by Mrs. de Spain. As Dr. Kowan pointed out, cancer patients on a Laetrile regime should avoid entirely for some time all animal proteins - - meat, fish, fowl, eggs, cheese. These recipes, then,

are for people who don’t have cancer and don’t want cancer. However, don’t regard these recipes as cer. Just accept them as a tasty way B-17. Some of the recipes recommend source of B-17. If you can’t get them, other B-17 rich seeds or nuts.

a prevention of canto get your Vitamin apricot kernels as the substitute one of the

APPETIZERS AND RELISHES Pineapple Cranberry Relish 2 C. frozen cranberries 1 C. dried apricots, soaked in pineapple juice. 2 t. apricot kernels (or substitute)

¥% t. sea salt 1 C. freshly steamed ¥%, C, raw honey

pineapple,

chopped

Grind cranberries in blender. Add remaining ingredients, except the pineapple. Fold this in. Chill and serve as side dish or with meat and poultry. Serves four.

126

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Stuffed Celery 11 stalks celery 3 oz. package of cream cheese 1 T. ground apricot kernels (or substitute) pinch granulated garlic 1 T. minced organic parsley Mix last four ingredients together. ery stalks. Chill and serve.

Stuff cel-

Apple Bites 8 oz. package cream cheese 16 apple seeds 1 apple, grated 3 T. apricot kernels (or substitute) pinch of mace 16 raisins

Mix apple with cream cheese. Place apple seed inside of raisin. Form a small ball of apple and cream cheese with raisins in the middle. stitute).

Roll in the apricot kernels (or subChill for several hours.

Indian Curry Slices 3 large red apples, cored and sliced in 2/3” slices, include seeds from apples, ground 4 T. raw butter 1% t. curry powder 2 T. sorghum cane syrup pinch sea salt 1/3 C. ground raw coconut 1/3 C. ground raw sweet almonds Mix butter, curry and syrup _ together. Spread on one side of apple slices. Place apples on cookie sheet and place under broiler for 6 minutes. Remove from oven and sprinkle with coconut, almonds and seeds. Serve as garnish to main course.

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

127

Clam and Cheese Dip 1 can minced clams, well drained 1 large pkg. cream cheese 2% t. grated onion 2 t. lemon juice 2 t. soy sauce, tamari 2 dashes cayenne pepper 1 T. chopped water cress

¥, t. sea salt 1 clove garlic, minced

¥%, t. kelp powder 1 T. finely chopped alfalfa sprouts

¥%, C. clam liquor buckwheat and whole wheat crackers

Add all ingredients carefully except the clam juice and the crackers. Add clam juice, a little at a time, until dip is consistency of whipped cream. Chill. Serve with crackers.

FISH AND SEA FOODS Curried White Fish 2 Ibs. fish 2 T. arrowroot powder 6 T. sesame oil 2 t. curry powder 1 C. thinly sliced mushrooms 1 small can bamboo shoots 1 apple, grated seeds from the apple, ground 1 T. lemon juice 1 C. sour cream or yogurt 1 t. sea salt

Yt. grated lemon rind ¥, C. minced onion Coat fish with arrowroot. Blend the curry powder in the oil and marinate the fish for

128

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

about 1 hour. Brown the mushrooms, onions, apple, and apple seeds in a buttered skillet, over medium heat for about five minutes. Stir in the remaining ingredients except the fish. Place fish and oil in baking dish. Spoon over sauce and bake for 30 minutes at 350° F. Baste several times. Serve with steamed brown rice. Serves four. Sauteed Fish with Avocado Sauce 3 Ibs. salmon steaks (tuna or halibut may be

substituted) %4”’ thick 2 T. raw butter ¥% C. raw butter, melted (for sauce)

1% t. sea salt 1 t. prepared brown mustard 2 t. lemon juice 1 t. paprika

Place 2 T. butter equally in two heavy skillets. When it starts to sizzle, place the fish in. Make sauce by mixing % C. melted butter, the mustart, the salt and lemon juice. Baste fish frequently with the sauce. Cook fish gently until flesh flakes easily. Don’t try to brown it, as this dries and overcooks fish. Sprinkle with paprika. Serve on large fish platter decorated with fresh sprigs of water cress. Serve avocado sauce on the side. Avocado sauce:

1 ripe avocado large handful of water cress, rinsed and well drained

¥ C. sour cream 1 t. lemon juice ¥, t. sea salt dash tabasco

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

129

Mix all of the ingredients at high speed in blender. Chill.’ Serves six.

Italian Shrimp 2 Ibs. jumbo shrimp ¥% C. olive oil, imported ¥%, C. raw butter 4 cloves garlic (finely chopped) small handful parsley (finely chopped) ¥% C. whole wheat flour (or lima bean flour) 2 t. ground peach kernels or apricot kernels 1 C. drawn butter sauce* Ingredients for drawn butter: 2 T. whole wheat flour (or lima bean flour)

¥% t. freshly gound pepper 1 t. lemon juice 1 C. hot water

2 T. more butter Wash and shell shrimp, leave the tails on. Remove the veins. Wash again in cold water. Dry, dust with flour. Put olive oil and butter in flat baking dish and heat under low broiler until butter is melted. Place shrimp in baking dish. Broil under low heat for eight minutes. Add garlic and parsley to drawn butter sauce. Pour over shrimp and stir until all shrimp are coated. Return to heat. Broil 2 to 3 minutes. Sprinkle kernels on top. Serve *Drawn butter sauce: Melt 2 T. butter, add 2 T. whole wheat flour, % t. pepper, lemon juice and hot water. Bring to boil stirring constantly and cook for five minutes. Add another 2 T. butter and stir until melted. Serves four. Tuna Almond Crepes 2 small cans tuna fish, drained

130

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

3 T. raw butter (or cold pressed vegetable oil) . 1 C. chopped mushrooms 2 t. apricot kernel, ground

1/3 C. chopped onion 1/3 C. chopped celery 1/3 C. chopped black olives pinch thyme salt and pepper to taste 2 C. Mornay sauce (see sauces) 14 crepes 1% grated raw cheddar cheese Lightly brown the mushrooms, onions, and celery in the butter. Add the olives, thyme, salt and pepper. Mix in enough sauce to hold filling together. Place two spoonfuls of mixture in the center of each crepe. Roll up and place in buttered baking dish with the seam down. Fill, roll, and place all crepes. May make two layers. Cover with the sauce and sprinkle with the cheese. Bake at 375° F. for 15 to 20 minutes. Serve at once with green vegetable and tossed salad. Serves four.

Escalloped Oysters with Lima Beans 1 C. green lima beans, cooked 2 pts. eastern oysters, cleaned. Save liquor. ¥, C. melted raw butter (or cold pressed vegetable oil) 2 C. finely crushed whole wheat crackers salt to taste, sea salt freshly ground pepper to taste 1 C. cream dash nutmeg

Butter a 1% qt. baking dish. Mix 2 C. finely crushed

cracker

crumbs

with

% C. melted

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

131

butter. Put crumbs in layer with limas and oysters. Resefve 1/3 C. crumbs for top. Sprinkle each layer with salt and pepper. Mix cream and sand-free oyster liquor together and pour over all. Sprinkle on nutmeg and the top crumbs. Bake at 350° F. for about 35 minutes.

MEAT Beef and Bean Ragout ¥% calf heart cut into thin strips or 2 lbs. stewing beef 1 onion 1 carrot 1 parsnip

¥%, C. dry wine 4 T. raw butter 4 T. whole wheat flour 1 T. sorghum cane syrup 3 T. browned onions 2 T. parsley, chopped 2 T. lemon juice and a little rind 2 C. cooked fava beans (or lima or “shell” beans) 2 T. chopped capers

2 T. chopped anchovies salt and pepper to taste, sea salt

% C. thick cream 4 C. parmesan cheese Cook meat in large kettle with onion, carrot, wine, and parsnip until tender. Drain and place meat on warm platter. Save the stock. Place the beans on top of the meat. Make a cream gravy by blending the butter and flour together in saucepan over medium heat until smooth. Add stock and stir until thick and

132

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

smooth. Add the remaining ingredients and pour over the meat and beans. Sprinkle the top with cheese and serve. Serves six.

Almond Steak 1’ lbs. top sirloin steak, organic 4 T. almonds, raw, freshly ground in blender ] t. apricot kernels, ground

1 T. olive oil or raw butter salt to taste, sea salt

¥, C. brandy or apple juice 4 T. water cress, chopped One hour before cooking, press ground almonds into steak. Let stand at room temperature for one hour. Heat fat in heavy frying pan. Pan broil steak to desired doneness. Season to taste with salt and place on warm platter. Sprinkle top with chopped water cress. Add kernels to the juices in the skillet. Add the brandy and flame. Heat until slightly thickened. Spoon over steak and serve. Serves two.

Blanquette of Veal 2 lbs. breast or shoulder of veal 2 C. water ¥%, C. white wine ] t. sea salt 1 onion 1 carrot, cut up 2 T. whole wheat flour or lima bean flour 2 T. raw butter 9 small pear onions 9 mushrooms, chopped pinch thyme pinch clove 2 fertile egg yolks, beaten 4 oz raw cream

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

33

pinch nutmeg

1/8 t. bay leaf, crushed Y% C. sherry 1% C. chicken stock or veal stock 1 C. cooked green lima beans, heated Bone and cube the veal. Cook for 1% hours in water and wine. Twenty-five minutes before veal is done put carrot and onions in with veal and cook. In saucepan, brown the mushrooms in the butter. Stir in the flour and, when smooth, add the sherry and chicken stock. Stir a little sauce into egg yolks, then stir egg yolks into sauce. Add spices. Do not boil after egg yolks have been added. Stir in the cream and salt to taste. Drain the veal and vegetables. Place on large warm platter. Put limas on top and pour white sauce over all. Serve at once. French-Italian Spaghetti Sauce with wheat Spaghetti Spaghetti: 1 lb. buckwheat spaghetti 1 T. olive oil (or other) 2 qts. water for cooking spaghetti 1 T. sea salt

Buck-

Cook spaghetti in large pot of boiling water to which salt and oil have been added. When the spaghetti is tender but not mushy, drain and toss with 2 T. butter or Olive oil. Sauce: 2 small onions, finely chopped

¥%, C. olive oil 3 garlic cloves ] large can tomato puree

134

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

1 small can tomato paste 2 C. beef stock or water Y% t. sage ¥%, t. marjoram ¥% t. rosemary

¥%, t. thyme 1 C. chicken (optional)

livers, cut into tiny pieces

¥%, |b.

mushrooms,

fresh

sliced

thinly

Brown liver, onions, garlic and mushrooms in oil. Add herbs, stock and tomato. Cook gently, covered for about two hours. Serve over spaghetti. Sprinkle grated parmesan cheese on top. Hot chili seeds on the side, if desired. Salisbury Steaks in Sour Cream

1%

Ibs.

stewing

beef,

organic,

freshly

ground 4 T. raw butter 1 onion, chopped finely 1 egg, fertile

¥% C. macadamia, chopped 1 t. nutmeg 1 t. tarragon 1% t. sea salt freshly ground black pepper ¥% C. buckwheat flour Y% C. beef stock or bouillon 1 C. sour cream Brown onions lightly in 2 T. butter. Mix hamburger with egg, nuts, herbs, salt, pepper and browned onions. Form into six patties. Dredge in the flour and brown the patties. Cook gently for about six minutes or until still slightly pink inside. Remove to warm platter. Add stock and cream to

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

135

drippings. Heat gently, scraping and mixing in the drippings. Spoon over meat and serve. Serves six. Beef Bourguinon (Beef in Burgundy) 3 Ibs. stewing beef, cubed 2 T. raw butter 2 C. Burgundy wine 4 T. buckwheat flour ¥, C. consomme 24 pearl onions 1 C. sliced mushrooms 1 bay leaf pinch thyme 4 sprigs water cress (save for platter) 1 large onion, chopped handful parsley, chopped 1 clove garlic, minced 1 carrot, chopped 1 t. sorghum cane syrup Brown the meat in the butter. Sprinkle the flour over the meat and cook for 3 minutes. Stir in consomme, vegetables, wine and seasonings. Cook about 45 minutes. Remove vegetables and replace with mushrooms and onions. Resume cooking until meat is tender. Skim off excess fat and season to taste. Serve with home-made noodles. (See cereals.)

Almond Beef Hash 4 C. diced leftover beef 4 C. diced cooked potatoes 3 T. raw butter 1 onion, diced

1/3 C. dry wine 1 t. sorghum cane syrup 3 T. miso soy bean paste or soy sauce,

136

LAETRILE;

Nutritional Control for Cancer

tamari

3 T. tomato puree or paste 2/3 C. raw cream 1 t. basil dash paprika 2 t. apricot kernels, ground Brown the meat, onions and potatoes in the butter. Pour the wine over the meat mixture. Mix the remainder of the ingredients, except the kernels, together. Place meat mixture in casserole and pour sauce on top. Bake at 350° F. for 15 minutes. Sprinkle kernels on top and serve. Serves four.

POULTRY Chicken Supreme 3 whole chicken breasts 1/3 C. raw butter

1/3 C. dry wine or apple juice 1/3 C. chicken stock or water 1% C. raw cream salt and pepper to taste 1 T. lemon juice handful chopped mint handful water cress

1/3 C. raw cashews, chopped Remove, or have butcher remove, the breast meat from the chickens. Remove the skin. Boil breast bones and skin for twenty-five minutes for stock. Saute the breasts gently for about seven minutes. Don’t over-cook or they will be tough. Remove them to a warm platter. Add the wine and stock to the drippings and simmer down to a thick sauce. Add the lemon

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

ay

juice and stir in. Add the cream and mint and just heat’ through. Spoon over the chicken. Sprinkle the nuts on top. Serve at once, decorated with the water cress. Serves four. Oven “Fried” Chicken 2 small friers, cut up (skin removed for special diets) 1/3 C. whole wheat flour (buckwheat flour for special diets) 1 t. sea salt 1 T. sage 3 T. ground apricot kernels Rinse chickens and pat dry. Put rest of the ingredients in a paper bag. Place chicken in bag and shake until completely coated. Place chicken on oiled cookie sheet. Bake in 350° F. oven for one hour, turning chicken once. A little extra breading may be sprinkled on the chicken before turning and after. Serves four.

Avocado Chicken Tostada 4 corn tortillas, stone-ground 6 T. cold pressed vegetable oil 2 C. home-made chili con carne with small white lima beans, thick and hot 6 C. shredded iceberg lettuce 1 C. home-made chili sauce (mild) 1 C. Parmesan cheese 12 slices of chicken, cooked and chilled, skinned

2 avocados, peeled and sliced lengthwise garnish with radishes, tomato wedges, green onions, olives etc. Fry the tortillas, one at a time, in the hot

138

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

oil until crisp and brown. Drain and place one on each serving plate. Spoon the hot chili over the top of each tortilla. Toss shredded lettuce with about half of the home-made chili sauce. Pile the lettuce in a stack over the hot chili. Sprinkle half the cheese over each serving. Arrange the chicken and avocado slices on top of the center stacks of lettuce. Sprinkle with remaining chili sauce, then with remaining cheese. Garnish each serving with radishes, tomato wedges, green onions, and olives. Serves four. Walnut Chicken 1 lb. breast of chicken, skin and bone-free

1/3 C. celery, sliced 1 large onion, sliced 4 oz. can water chestnuts, sliced ¥%, t. sea salt 1 T. arrowroot 3 T. tamari soy sauce 2 T. dry white wine or apple juice 1 C. walnuts, raw 8 T. oil, cold pressed

¥, C. bamboo shoots, cubed pinch grated ginger 5 mushrooms, sliced Cut the chicken into 1%” pieces. Dredge in the arrowroot and salt, then do the same with the soy sauce and wine. Set aside. Gently heat the walnuts in 3 T. of the oil for about two minutes. Remove from the skillet. Add the remainder of the oil and when it’s hot and sizzling, but not smoking, cook the chicken until golden brown. Remove. Add vegetables and steam for four minutes. Add the meat. Add the wal-

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday nuts

and serve.

139

Serves four.

EGGS

Sweet Omelette 1 drop lecithin liquid 1 t. vanilla extract 1 t. brandy 2 fresh organic fertile eggs 2 T. raw honey 2 T. raw pecans, organic 2 T. raw unsweetened coconut 2 T. organic raisins (unsulphured) salt to taste, sea salt

¥ t. ground apricot kernel 1 T. certified raw butter (or cold pressed vegetable oil)

With paper toweling, wipe inside of heavy skillet with drop of lecithin. Separate eggs and beat whites into peaks. Put pan on to heat over medium heat. Have butter ready. Have plate warming. Gently blend beaten yolks into whites. Add vanilla and brandy. Put butter into the pan. It should sizzle but not burn or smoke. Pour in the egg mixture. Cook over medium heat. Tip pan so that the butter and eggs flow over the bottom and half-way up the sides. Lift the edges to let the uncooked egg flow under. Smooth the top of the omelette with your fork, and let it rest for a second or two. As soon as the edges appear done and the top

is still moist and creamy looking, sprinkle raisins, nuts, kernels, and coconut on top. Drizzle honey over this. Fold omelette in half. Slide carefully onto plate. Serves one.

140

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Almond Custard

4 6 6 2

C. milk organic fertile eggs, beaten T. sorghum cane syrup t. apricot kernels, ground

Mix milk, eggs, and syrup well. Place in double boiler and cook over hot water (not boiling) until thick, stirring constantly. Serve over chilled berries. Serves four.

SALADS Avocado-Fruit Salad 4 avocados, cut into halves 1 lemon, organic 1 C. seedless grapes 2 C. sour cream (or yogurt) Y% C. grated, unsweetened coconut

4 washed grape or fig leaves ¥%, C. fresh blueberries ¥%, C. fresh papaya, chopped coarsely ¥, C, shaved, raw almonds 2 t. ground apricot kernels Rub cut sides of avocados with lemon juice. Mix the sour creain lightly with the fruit, two teaspoons of lemon juice, and coconut. Place one half avocado on leaf on salad plate. Pile high with mixed fruit. Sprinkle with a mixture of almonds and apricot kernels. Chill thoroughly and serve. Serves four. Almond Cole Slaw 1 medium head cabbage

1 C. unsulphured raisins 1 medium carrot

¥% t. anise seed

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

2 1 1 1

141

t. ground apricot kernels T. sorghum cane syrup T. vinegar T. mayonnaise or more

Finely chop cabbage, raisins, and carrot. (This can be done easily in the blender.) Mix in the remaining ingredients and chill. Serves Six. Festive Apple Salad 4 large red apples, unpeeled, cored and chopped coarsely seeds of the apple, ground ¥% C. fresh organic pineapple chunks

¥, banana, chopped Y% C. filberts, chopped, raw 1 1 1 1

T. lemon juice T. grated lemon rind C. home-made mayonnaise bunch water cress

Mix all ingredients. Chill. Serve on beds of fresh, crisp, organic water cress. Garden Salad 4 C. fresh lettuce 4 small carrots, sliced 1 medium cucumber, sliced 6 radishes, sliced 6 sprigs fresh mint 10 pods fresh green peas 1 stalk raw broccoli, chopped 2 stalks celery, sliced, including leaves 2 large tomatoes, cut into sixths 1 red bell pepper, sliced. Include seeds. 1 or 2 green chili peppers, small and not too hot % C. raw sunflower seeds (contains B-15*)

142

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

3 t. apricot kernels 6 sprigs water cress 1 C. raw spinach

Mix all together in large salad bowl. and serve with Vinaigrette sauce.

Chill

*°B-15 is useful in transporting oxygen through the body.”—Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. Garden Salad Vinaigrette Sauce:

1/8 C. apple cider vinegar, not distilled 3/8 C. safflower oil 1 t. sea salt 1 clove garlic, minced 1 t. crushed sweet basil Mix together in small jar and chill beside salad. Don’t add until ready to serve. Serves six.

French Lentil Salad 2 C. lentil, grey-green water to cover

% t. mace 1 medium onion 1 bay leaf 1 C. fresh mint leaves, chopped

42 C. parsley, chopped 4 green onions, chopped, including green stalks 1 C. chopped red bell pepper including the seeds

¥% C. French dressing salt and pepper to taste, sea salt Wash lentils, place in saucepan with water

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

143

to cover. Bring to boil and cook 2 minutes. Turn off heat and allow beans to soak for 1 hour. Reheat and add onion, mace, bay leaf, and cook until just tender. Drain, saving juices for soup stock. Gently toss lentils with mint, parsley, green onions, bell pepper, French dressing, salt and fresh black pepper. Chill several hours. Serve on salad greens and decorate with sprigs of water cress and alfalfa sprouts.

Water Cress Salad 1 C. fresh water cress, stems removed 1 clove garlic, minced

¥, C. fresh safflower oil 1 large head romaine lettuce 1 C. fresh spinach-

fresh black pepper to taste ¥% t. sea salt 2 fresh fertile eggs % C. freshly grated cheese 2 C. millet dried bread cubes ¥, C. fresh safflower oil 1 large organic tomato 1 large avocado (optional) Heat % C. of oil and saute bread cubes until golden brown. Drain on absorbent paper. Clean and trim greens and break into bite size pieces. Toss greens with oil, add salt and pepper. Cook eggs 1% minutes and break over greens. Add lemon juice and toss gently to mix with eggs. Add croutons and cheese, segmented tomato, and avoca-

do. Serve at once.

Serves four.

144

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

SALAD DRESSING Avocado Almond Dressing or Cold Sauce 2 ripe large avocados, mashed to a pulp Y% C. home-made mayonnaise 1 T. onion, minced 2 t. apricot kernels, ground 1 clove garlic, minced 1 t. sea salt 1 T. lemon juice, fresh Blend, chill, and serve. Very good over gelatin salads, cold sliced meat, etc. Serves four. Basic Vinaigrette

¥, C. vinegar % C. oil 1 t. salt pinch of herbs 1 clove garlic, minced

Variations: tomato paste, onion spices, horseradish, paprika, mustard, cayenne, honey, capers, chopped egg, Parmesan, pimiento, peppers, relish, etc.

SOUPS Cream of Chicken and Almond Soup ¥, C. ground, unroasted almonds 3 C. chicken stock 1 onion, chopped

¥, C. chopped chicken 1 bay leaf %C, milk a.1..butter 2 T. whole wheat flour 1 C. cream

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

145

2 t. ground apricot kernels @

Place the stock, almonds, onion, and bay leaf in a saucepan. Heat gently for twentyfive minutes and set aside. Make a cream sauce by blending flour and butter together. Add milk and stir until smooth and hot. Discard bay leaf and strain if desired. Pour cream sauce into stock. Keep heat low and stir constantly for about four minutes. Turn off heat and add cream. Sprinkle top with apricot kernels and serve. Serves four. Garbanzo Bean Soup 1 C. cooked al earg beans, slightly chopped 4 T. raw butter 2 medium onions. Chop one, slice one thinly 2 t. soy sauce, tamari 2 C. chicken stock 2 slices sour dough, rye, or wheat bread ¥% C. Parmesan cheese (optional) Saute onions in butter until golden brown. Add soy sauce, chicken stock, and beans and simmer for 20 minutes. Toast bread. Butter it and float it on the soup just before serving. Sprinkle cheese on top and serve at once.

Serves two.

Chili Con Carne With Baby Limas 2 lbs. hamburger, freshly ground 2 T. butter, raw, or vegetable oil, cold pressed 2 T. onion 1 clove garlic ¥% C. red chili powder, mild (called ‘Cali-

146

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

fornia Chili’) 2 C. water 1 t. cumin 1 t. oregano

3 T. whole wheat flour 6 T. water 2 C. baby dried lima beans, cooked (also good served instead, over buckwheat spaghetti) salt to taste

Saute the meat until lightly brown in the butter. Add the onion and garlic. Stir in the chili powder, water, cumin, and oregano. Let mixture come to a boil, reduce heat and simmer, covered, until meat is very tender. Salt to taste. Thicken the sauce before serving as follows: Make a paste with the flour and water. Blend and add all at once. Stir until smooth and thick. Simmer five minutes. Serve with steamed corn tortillas and hot chili salsa.*

*Chili salsa:

chop fine and mix:

1 hot

chili pepper, 2 raw tomatoes, % onion, 2 clove garlic, % t. salt, % t. oregano, 1 T. vinegar, % bell pepper. Chill for several hours before serving. Serves four. Fresh Lima Bean Soup 2% C. freshly cooked lima beans 2 C. certified raw milk (or yogurt) 2 T. whole wheat flour 1 T. sorghum cane syrup 2 T. raw butter 1 clove of garlic 1 thin slice onion

¥%, t. sea salt fresh pepper to taste

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

147

Blend the flour and butter in sauce pan. Add the milk and stir until smooth and thick. Set aside. Put the lima beans, salt, pepper, garlic, onion, and sorghum in blender and blend at high speed. Pour hot white sauce in blender. Blend and serve at once. Serves four. Chilled Water Cress Soup 2 onions, chopped 2 T. raw butter 2 potatoes, chopped 2 C. raw all purpose cream 1 C. milk 1 C. chicken stock

¥%, t. white pepper ¥, t. sea salt 1 C. stemmed and chopped water cress 1 T. ground apricot kernels, raw

Saute onions in butter until transparent. Add potatoes, milk, and stock. Cook until the potatoes are tender. Pour contents into blender. Blend until smooth. Add water cress and blend again. Add cream and chili and serve in chilled bowls with a sprinkling of freshly ground kernels. Serves four.

VEGETABLES Fresh Asparagus with Almond Butter 2 lbs. fresh asparagus 2 T. raw butter 1 t. apricot kernel, ground

Break off tough ends and discard. Steam asparagus in a little water, about % C., for three to five minutes. Or steam in steamette. Serve with almond butter. Many veg-

148

LAETRILE:

Nutritional Control for Cancer

etables may be sutstituted for the asparagus, such as broccoli, carrots, beets, spinach, green beans, turnips, chard, etc.

Almond butter: Melt % C. raw butter, gently. Mix in %t. ground apricot kernels. Serve over vegetables. Serves four. Stuffed Eggplant 2 small eggplants 4 cloves garlic, minced 1 C. sour cream (or yogurt) 1 C. cubed cheddar cheese, raw 1 C. whole wheat bread crumbs 2 t. ground apricot kernels 2 t. raw butter Bake halved eggplants until tender, about 25 minutes, in 350° F. oven. Scrape out centers, chop, mix with cheese, sour cream, and garlic. Refill eggplant shells with mixture. Mix apricot kernels with bread crumbs and salt and sprinkle on top. Dot with butter. Bake until hot and brown on top. Serve at once. Serves four.

Lima Stuffed Tomatoes 4 large tomatoes 1 C. fresh lima beans, organic ¥% C. fresh corn, organic, scraped of the cob 1 t. fresh parsley, organic, minced 1 t. ground raw almonds or apricot kernels

Hollow out about a two-inch diameter from the tomatoes. Cook the limas. Add the corn and parsley about the last 2 minutes of cooking. Drain well (saving the vegetable juices for soup). Place in tomato ‘cases. Broil lightly (about three minutes).

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

Sprinkle four.

the nuts on top. a

Serve.

149

Serves

Hot Artichokes in Garlic Butter Trim the sharp points off of the leaves of

four artichokes with scissors. Place in steamer upside down. Steam until tender, about 35 minutes. They are done when center leaves pull out easily. Melt % C. raw butter in saucepan and add the juice of one lemon, 1 clove of garlic, minced, and 1T. ground apricot kernels. Serve. The tips of the artichoke are dipped into the butter and then scraped off with the teeth. Serves four.

FRUITS Peaches Melba 2 fresh peaches 1 T. honey

1 T. slivered unblanched raw almonds 1 C. raspberries 1 pint home-made almond or vanilla ice cream kernels from peaches Poach peaches in boiling water for one minute. Remove to bowl. Peel and halve peaches. Crack stones and grind kernels. Set aside. Put honey on peaches and chill in refrigerator, sprinkled with seeds for one hour. Rub or mash raspberries to a pulp. Don’t remove raspberry seeds. To assemble, place a scoop of ice cream in each of four bowls or goblet. Place peach half on top with dome side up. Next, pour raspberries over this and, lastly, sprinkle slivered almonds. Serve at once.

150

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Fruit Gelatin, Oriental Style Vegetarian 7” stick of kanten or agar-agar 1 C. water 2 C. mixed fruit, chopped (include berries,* drupes,** and their kernels, ground) 1/3 C. raw honey ¥% C. almond milk, raw, imitation cream, home-made or commercial yogurt, thinned (see index)

¥, t. apricot kernels, ground 2/3 C. raw honey ¥, C. water 2 t. lemon juice 2 t. grated lemon rind, organic

Wash and wring out kanten. Place the kanten in 1 C. water and heat. After kanten dissolves, add 1/3 C. honey, almond milk, and kernels. Chill to harden. Mix honey and water. Add the lemon juice, fruit, and chilled kanten, cut into cubes. Pour mixture into a wet mold and chill. Serves four.

*Berries such as strawberries, raspberries, and blackberries, etc. **Drupes are fruits with a center stone’ such as peaches, plums and cherries.

Cranberry-Nut Parfait 1 C. frozen cranberries, raw

¥, C. raw honey 2 fertile eggs, separated 2 t. ground apricot kernels 1 C. home-made cream, non-dairy Blend all of the ingredients in blender at high speed. Fold in egg whites. Pour into freezing tray and freeze four hours.

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

151

Strawberry Cream

2 C. strawberriés, fresh 2 C. yogurt, unflavored

¥, C. raw honey 2 t. apricot kernels, ground Whirl in blender and serve. Raspberries or other berries may be substituted. A raw egg may be added. Serves four.

Orange Freeze 1 medium sized can of frozen, unsweetened orange juice 1 medium sized apple, cored and coarsely chopped seeds from apple 1 tray medium to’ small sized ice cubes

Place orange juice in the blender. Start blender. Add the apple and the seeds. Blend at high speed. Add a few ice cubes at a time until thoroughly blended. Serve in paper cups. Any frozen, unsweetened juice concentrate may be used. Serves four.

DESSERTS Almond Crumbles

1 C. raw butter cold 1 C. dark brown sugar 2% C. whole wheat pastry flour 2 fertile eggs separated 1 t. vanilla

¥% t. sea salt 1 C. ground raw almonds 1 T. ground apricot kernels

152

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Blend the sugar, flour, and almonds into the cold hard butter quickly with the finger tips. Add the egg yolks, vanilla, and salt. Form into 1” balls (may have to squeeze tightly). Dip in unbeaten egg whites. Flatten slightly and place on greased cookie

sheet. Bake at 360° cookies.

F. for 15 minutes.

48

Pink Mallow Fluff 1 C. frozen cranberries

¥, C. cold water

¥, C. boiling water ¥% C. bland oil 2 t. ground apricot kernels % C. raw honey 2 T. gelatin Soften gelatin in blender with cold water. Turn on blender to mix. Let soften for several minutes, then add the boiling water, oil, apricot kernels, and honey. When thoroughly blended add the frozen cranberries. Pour in bowl and chill. Serves four. Yam Pie (crustless) 1 T. gelatin

¥% C. apple juice ¥% C. raw milk (or yogurt) 1% mashed, cooked yams 3 T. sorghum cane syrup

¥% T. sea salt ¥% t. nutmeg 1 t. cinnamon ¥% t. ginger 3 eggs, fertile, separated Dissolve the gelatin in the juice. Mix into hot milk. Add the yams, syrup, salt, nut-

Easy Recipes for Vitamin B-17 Meals Everyday

153

meg, cinnamgn, and ginger. Cook gently in double boiler until thick. Cool to luke warm. Stir in the egg yolks. Cool until set. Beat with mixer. Fold in stiffly beaten egg whites. Pour into pie dish and chill until firm. Serves four.

Cranberry Fruit Cake 3 T. active dry yeast 3 C. whole wheat pastry flour ¥ C. buckwheat flour 1% t. sea salt 2/3 C. warm milk, raw

¥% C. sorghum cane syrup 3 fertile eggs, beaten 2 t. ground apricot kernels

1% C. dates

j

1 C. cranberries 1 C. fresh pineapple, cooked down in % C. wine for about 45 minutes.

1% t. ginger 1% t. cinnamon 1 t. nutmeg Mix 1 C. whole wheat flour, salt, and yeast. Add the warm milk and syrup. Beat until smooth. Cover, place in warm area, and let rest for about 25 minutes. Cream butter, eggs, and kernels and beat into flour mixture. Beat in remaining flours, beating very hard until smooth. Fold in the remaining ingredients, except the glaze. Pour into well greased and floured 3 quart mold. Cover and let rise for about 1% hours. Bake in preheated oven for 45 minutes. Cool and top with cranberry glaze.

154

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer Blackberry Ice Cream — Non-Dairy | C. ground and cooked buckwheat 1 T. flax seed 1 T. lecithin granules or powder 1% C. raw honey 2 fertile eggs ¥% C. bland, cold pressed oil such as soy or corn 2 C. blackberries (may be frozen, unsweetened) Grind flax in blender.

ingredients. freeze

Add water and other

Pour into plastic container and

APPENDIX The following medical reports, case histories, comments and observations are provided for doctors and researchers who desire a review of Beardianism and Laetrile at the scientific level.

Professional comments McNaughton Foundation, 920132

and inquiries are invited by The P.O. Box B-17, San Ysidro, Calif.

b55

viva | ti

reer

os

-

7 lecithingece ae

irad Watient wef .

os sibie¥ ade: a

= a

;

a be¢ fate,meee:

CES

A

—

conne dls is blemiar isle whites ar pins i

7

rutreigatey, Pour iio plaster tutialt ~~

=

rceiz

1

ah,

i

Crs y

a

—

oe 7

™%

s

7 ;

‘ ——

%

7

-

~

=

= :

2

|

*

a

—

oe

~-

7

THE NITRILOSIDES (VITAMIN B-17) THEIR NATURE, OCCURRENCE AND METABOLIC SIGNIFICANCE. ANTINEOPLASTIC VITAMIN B-17* Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is proposed to include a large group of water-soluble, essentially non-toxic, sugary, compounds found in over 800 plants, many of which are edible. These factors are collectively known chemically as B-cyanophoric glycosides. They comprise molecules made of hydrogen cyanide, a benzene ring or an acetone and a sugar. Though the intact molecule is for all practical purposes completely non-toxic, it may be hydrolyzed by B-glycosidase to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone, and a sugar. We have proposed the collective generic term n-i-t-r-i-l-os-i-d-e for all such cyanophorioglycosides of dietary significance. One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs in the kernels or seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples, apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this factor, often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent. Since the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate the non-toxic water-soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they contain as vitamin B-17. The presence of nitriloside in the diet produces specific physiologic effects and leaves as metabolites specific chemical compounds of a physiologically active nature. The production by a non-toxic, water-soluble accessory food factor of specific physiological effects as well as identifiable metabolites suggests the vitamin nature of the compound. The ubiquity of the compound or its metabolites in plant and animal foods further corroborates its vitamin status. And the development of specific deficiency status as a result of its deficiency in or absence from the diet, and the correc*Reprinted edition

1970,

of

Journal

the

from with

of

The

Journal

permission

Applied

of

of

Applied

the

author.

Nutrition,

ment, appear at the end of this article.

157

and

Nutrition, The

an

fall

masthead

editorial

com-

158

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

tion of such pathologic deficiency states by supplying the factor confirm its vitamin status. The diet of primitive man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits, since these seeds are rich in pro-

tein, polyunsaturated fats, and other nutrients. Seeds also contain as much as 2 percent or more nitriloside. There are scores of other major foods naturally, or normally, very rich in nitriloside. Let’s consider now what happens when one eats the nitriloside-rich seeds of fruit. ‘In metabolism, nitriloside is hydrolyzed to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone and sugar. This occurs largely through the enzyme B-glycosidase produced by intestinal bacteria as well as by the body. The released HCN is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese to the relatively nontoxic thiocyanate molecule. The sugar is normally metabolized. The released benzaldehyde in the presence of oxygen is immediately oxidized to benzoic acid which is non-toxic. Thus this newly designated vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) could account for: (1) The thiocyanates in the body fluids - blood, urine,-saliva, sweat, and tears; (2) For part of the benzoic acid (and subsequently hippuric acid); salicylic acid isomers; (3) For the HCN that goes to the production of cyanocobalamin from hydrocobalamin, or production of vitamin B-12 from provitamin B-12. These are the physiological properties of the common nitriloside amygdalin. Before considering the possible antineoplastic activity of this vitamin B-17, let us recall that the benzoic acid arising from it has certain antirheumatic and antiseptic properties. It was rather widely used (in Germany and elsewhere) for rheumatic disease therapy prior to the advent of the ortho-hydroxy addition product of benzoic acid known as ortho-hydroxybenzoic acid or salicylic acid. It was

Appendix

159

originally obtained from beechwood bark. As a matter of interest, the para hydroxy isomer of benzoic acid occurs in the parahydroxybenzaldehyde aglycon (non-sugar) of the nitriloside found in the cereal millet. Millet was once more widely used in human nutrition than wheat. Wheat seed contains little or no nitriloside. Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both German and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously, this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in the body through metabolizing vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). However, chronic hypotension has been reported in Nigerians who eat quantities of the nitriloside-containing manioc (cassava)— especially that of the bitter variety. Let us pause to reflect upon this question: Might not the rheumatic diseases as well as certain aspects of hypertension be in some cases partially related to a dietary deficiency in

nitrilosides? One can hardly deny that the ingestion of a sufficient quantity of nitriloside-containing foods will metabolically yield sufficient benzoic acid and/or salicylic acid isomers to palliate rheumatic disease and certainly to decrease, however temporarily, hypertension as well as to foster the nitrilosation of provitamin B-12 to active vitamin B-12: cyanocobalamin. Despite all this, are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific vitamin deficiency -- a deficiency specifically in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)? Again, let us reflect fora moment. There are many chronic or metabolic diseases that challenge medicine. Many of these diseases have already been conquered. What proved to be their solution? By solution we mean both prevention and cure. What really cures really prevents. Let us think of some of these diseases that have found total prevention and hence cure. -We are speaking of metabolic or non-metabolic diseases. At one time the metabolic disease known as scurvy killed hundred of thousands of people; sometimes entire populations. This disease found total prevention and cure in the

160

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

ascorbic acid or vitamin C component of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the once fatal diseases so aptly called pernicious anemia, pellagra, beri beri, countless neuropathies, and the like, found complete cure and prevention in specific dietary factors, that is, essential nutrients in an adequate diet. I can hear an objection, of course. But let me remind you that all the conquered chronic or metabolic diseases, also the conquered ones mentioned, were found to be simple specific dietary diseases. Let me also remind you of this: before these diseases were understood, before the means of total prevention and cure was discovered, it was widely believed that these dietary deficiency diseases were due to viruses, bacteria, bad air, “‘infection,” or some such cause. Now I ask you to name a single chronic or metabolic disease that has ever found total prevention and cure except by specific dietary factors and/or factors normal to adequate animal economy. I have never found anyone who has been able to suggest a single chronic or metabolic disease that has ever been totally prevented and cured except through a factor essential to adequate diet and/or to the animal economy. Let’s go a step further, almost to the border of dogmatism, to advance an axiom in medicine and biology:

No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention, that is, real cure and real prevention - - except through factors essential to adequate diet and/ or normal to animal economy. I would welcome a contradiction to this principle; but even an exception would “‘prove the rule.” Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception? In my humble opinion, certainly not. But does it follow from this that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is the specific antineoplastic vitamin? Logically, by itself, alone, this conclusion that nitriloside is the specific antineoplastic vitamin does not follow. However, examine the brilliant laboratory studies of Dr. Dean Burk of the Depart-

Appendix

161

ment of Cytochemistry of the National Cancer Institute in Washington. I believe that in the light of the experimental evidence that he has produced, you might agree that vitamin B-17 nitriloside is indeed the antineoplastic vitamin.* One might ask, then, whether we suggest that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) or Laetrile is an effective cancer drug. Our reply must be: it is not a drug; it is a vitamin. We feel certain that it will never be possible to speak of a true or effective ‘‘cancer drug,” any more than it is possible to speak of a pellagra drug, a scurvy drug, a pernicious anemia drug, or the like. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has just announced that the major drug (as contrasted to the normal animal product insulin) used in the palliation of diabetes - - Orinase - - is “no good.”” We know of no true drug that actually prevents or cures metabolic or chronic diseases - - or really does any genuine good. We mean by “drug,” of course, relatively toxic chemicals foreign to the body or foreign to the animal economy. As already mentioned, vitamin B-17 (Laetrile) is totally non-toxic. Its lethal dose in mice and rats, by injection, is about 25,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. It is so nearly non-toxic that in some studies the water, used as a dilutent, presents a greater toxicity than the vitamin. This applies for acute, subacute and chronic toxicity. By mouth in test animals it is less than 1/20 as toxic as aspirin. Speaking of aspirin, let us recall that this great German discovery, the acetylation product of ortho-hydroxy benzoic acid and some Salicylic-acid isomers, as well as benzoic acid itself, are the normal metabolites of dietary nitrilosides found in the seeds of all fruits and some cereals. For example, millet, mentioned above, once more widely used than wheat, yields the salicylic acid isomer para-hydroxybenzoic acid, which *Author’s gram,

also

plication

footnote: a

of

report

vitamin

Dr. on

B-17

Burk’s

the

nitriloside

Nieper, a brilliant young man in biochemistry with genius in

ion.

paper

was

in the

same

and

clinical

pharmacodynamics

(amygdalin)

by

Dr.

proap-

Hans

who combines excellent ability clinical medicine, in my opin-

162

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

arises as the metabolic product of its nitriloside; p-hydroxymandelonitrile-B-glucoside. In this you can discern, however dimly, the dietary-therapeutic profile of the salicylates as a means of satisfying a dietary deficiency in benzoic acid and the related salicylic acid isomers. Returning to the non-toxicity of nitriloside; it is no more toxic than dextrose or ascorbic acid - - and to the diabetic less toxic than the former. I have noticed that newspapers are carrying the wire dispatches reporting the studies of Professor Roger Williams of the University of Texas. He is quoted on the “toxicity” of

commercial white bread as sold in the United State. You will recall that Doctor Williams is the discoverer of vitamin B-1 or thiamine, and the first to synthesize it. Doctor Williams, in effect, showed that commercial white bread as sold in the United State is about 70 times more toxic than vitamin B-17. Doctor Williams fed four strains of white rats (noted for their vigor), nothing but commercial American white bread for three months. Seventy-five percent of all the experimental animals so fed died of malnutrition before the experiment was complete. Those fed on whole wheat all survived. The commercial white bread was enriched by law with some crystalline vitamins, but not in a sufficient quantity and variety to prevent these rats being killed by the bread. So how about vitamin B-17 studies? White rats fed 70 times the normal human dose of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) used in the palliation of human cancer were completely normal and healthy after 90 days. None of them died. There were some “physiological side reactions” to vitamin B-17 - - greater weight and appetite. After all they were receiving nourishment; a vitamin, not a vitamin-deficient ration or a drug. The rats that died from eating commercial white bread -all 75 percent of them - - died as a direct result of a deficiency in vitamins found in the whole grain of wheat. There was the deficiency in vitamin E as a result of the missing germ or seed of the wheat, a deficiency of choline, vitamin B-15 (pangamic acid), vitamin B-6, biotin and other factors as a result of the missing bran taken from highly refined bleached white flour. Recall that the natural whole grain of

Appendix

163

wheat is composed of the starchy endosperm or bulk of the seed as well as the germ of the seed which carries the essential oils in which are dissolved the tocopherols or vitamin E, and the bran which contains an abundance of the B vitamins. Those rats that died from a vitamin deficiency produced by eating less than the whole grain, the whole food. When civilized man eats less than the whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel, he experiences a specific and total deficiency not only in oils and proteins but in.minerals and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit. By discarding the seed or kernel, man experiences a specific and total deficiency in vitamin B-17 so far as that fruit is concerned. Let me remind you that were man by circumstances limited to no source of food but apricots, peaches, plums, cherries and the like and ate only their fruit without seeds he would ina short time develop a fatal deficiency. in proteins and fats not to mention vitamins. He would die from this deficiency just as the white rats died from the deficiency produced by eating only the starch of wheat without the seed germ and bran. But if he ate the seeds or kernels with the fruit flesh, he would get proteins, fats and other nutrients essential to health. Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is also found in great abundance in a very wide variety of vegetable foods once eaten in great abundance by man, and the natural fodder of animals is similarly rich in the factor. In a paper which I hope to publish soon, I have listed over 62 plant foods eaten by man and over 70 common fodder plants that are very rich in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). Their concentration of this vitamin compares favorably with that of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) so far as quantity and ubiquity are concerned. As in the case of many other vegetables, sprouts may contain 10 to 30 times as much vitamin B-17 as mature plants. It is not practicable to furnish here the several hundred references of the basic research on nitrilosides nor to list extensive tables showing the occurrence of this new vitamin in a wide range of foods. It would not be germane to explain the reasons why and how “modern diet” has been almost totally stripped of nitrilosides.

164

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Suffice it to say that the factors that made commercial white bread lethal to rats and gave the world the empty calories of refined white sugar also have served to produce a fulminating deficiency in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) in the diet of so-called civilized man. So much for the specific nutritional aspect of vitamin B-17 © (nitriloside). How can a compound that is totally non-toxic be relevant to a disease as serious as cancer, a disease perhaps as lethal as pernicious anemia once was? Would we not expect that very powerful cytotoxic compounds would be required to destroy cancer cells? Would these not be compounds like the nitrogen mustards, the antimetabolites, the cyclophosphoramides, methotrexate, 5-gluoruracil, 6-chloropurine, 6-mercaptopurine, azaserine, triethylenphosphramide, the nitrosoguanidines, and countless other compounds so toxic that some kill almost 25 percent of the patients treated directly or indirectly through toxicity alone? It is true that neoplastic cells are destroyed by cytotoxins. The cytotoxins used so far, the ones that I have mentioned, are more toxic to body or somatic cells than specifically to

cancer cells. This is obvious.

Otherwise we would be able to

administer these cytotoxins until they killed all cancer cells and left the host alive. But they almost always, if not always, kill the host before killing the neoplastic cells. In the problem of neoplastic therapy we have in drugs an almost insoluble paradox. For an agent to be effective it must be both non-toxic to somatic cells and yet present powerful cytotoxins to neoplastic cells - - cytotoxins like the cyanides and benzaldehyde. Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) releases a specific and powerful cytotoxin, probably the most powerful one known. This is hydrogen cyanide. Our formulation of Laetrile also releases an equimolecular quantity of benzaldehyde which, before oxidation to benzoic acid, is a very powerful cytotoxin. We have here two very powerful cytotoxins. Doctor Dean Burk of the National Cancer Institute has brilliantly demonstrated, largely through the utilization of the technics and manometer of Otto Warburg, that the benzaldehyde released by the hydrolysis of nitriloside or Laetrile is not only in itself a power-

Appendix

165

ful cytotoxin but that it multiplies through a very powerful synergy the cytotoxic effects of ‘both - - cyanide and benzaldehyde - - to an extent many, many times greater than the arithmetic sum of their separate effects. These two compounds in synergy are more powerful cytotoxins than any of those that I have already mentioned above. Why isn’t the equimolecular quantity of benzaldehyde oxidized immediately by the cancer cells to harmless benzoic acid as occurs in body or somatic cells and why isn’t the equimolecular quantity of cyanide converted immediately to thiocyanate as it is in the body by somatic cells? Recall that Otto Warburg himself received one Nobel Prize for proving the suboxidative activity of cancer cells. They ferment- - fermentative metabolism rather than respiratory metabolism plays a large role in cancer. This metabolism utilizes less oxygen (in the free state); therefore, oxidation of benzaldehyde occurs much more slowly. Unoxidized benzaldehyde lags, as it were, in the neoplastic cell. This cell also lacks a very important enzyme posséssed by body or somatic cells. This enzyme is rhodanese or thiosulfate transulfurase. It converts cyanide to the harmless thiocyanate. With the selective lag of both undetoxified cyanide as well as unoxidized benzaldehyde in the neoplastic cell and the multiplication of cytotoxicity that the combination affords, the neoplastic cells suffer a lethal cytotoxicity while the hostal or somatic cells are totally unaffected - - except possibly in a beneficial or physiological manner. We are dealing with a vitamin, remember. Pause again to reflect. Is it possible that this described cytotoxic synergy arising from the hydrolysis product of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is a coincidental or fortuitous phenomenon - - a synergy totally ungrounded in any other biological experience, a pure accident? Or does this synergy represent the end-product of the enduring effects of a process of natural selection between plants and animals through which a specific antineoplastic vitamin, vitamin B-17, has evolved in a natural environment once as abundantly rich in nitrilosides as in ascorbic acid? There is no controversy, of course, on the fact that equimolecular quantities of benzaldehyde and cyanide resulting

166

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

from the hydrolysis of vitamin B-17 will selectively kill cancer cells. The cytotoxicity of these chemicals against neoplastic cells is known, but the margin of safety for these raw chemicals is very little greater than the most powerful cytotoxins - - except that, different from the latter, there is no residual, cumulative or chronic toxicity from them. Contrast this to the utter non-toxicity of these same chemicals bound in the white sugary nitriloside molecule. Wherein, then, is there a controversy over this vitamin in therapy? Though the major and practically sole controversy is and has always been a political one, if we were to try to pin-point a specific scientific criticism it would probably be this: what real or experimental proof is there that the nitriloside molecule is selectively hydrolyzed or broken down to free cyanide, benzaldehyde and sugar at and by the neoplastic lesion? It is, of course, a commonplace - - now almost a century old - - that the nitriloside is split to its 3 major components by the enzyme B-glucosidase. It is also known that the malignant lesion contains a high concentration of certain B-glycosidases (e.g., B-glucuronidase). The proponents of vitamin B-17 for the prevention and palliation of cancer have long argued inferentially for the presence of specific B-glucosidase activity in the malignant lesion, which would account for its selective lysis, with the release of the admittedly highly cytotoxic HCN and benzaldehyde in synergy. The opponents of vitamin B-17 in cancer therapy have rather myopically (I believe) argued that there is no proof that selective hydrolysis of the nitriloside occurs in the neoplastic cell. They reject all existing clinical evidence, impressive, for this effect. Thus it is an extraordinarily important finding that Doctor Dean Burk again reports on his observation of the effect of the incubation of C3H mouse mammary cancer with vitamin B-17 in the Warburg manometer. He reports that the malignant mammary tissue selectively hydrolyzes the added nitriloside to free cyanide, benzaldehyde and sugar with a highly effective cytotoxicity; and that this does not occur in benign or somatic control mammary tissue! This experimental observation means, of course, that the neoplastic tissue carries a specific B-glucosidase activ-

Appendix

167

ity that normal or somatic tissue lacks, which lack here is obvious in view of the total non-toxicity of the material toward normal tissue. This very crucial experiment will, of course, be repeated and checked and rechecked in many laboratories. Let us in summary simplify all this in terms of vitamin action. When vitamin B-17 enters the body (in foods, for example), it is hydrolyzed only to a very slight degree by body or somatic cells. This is obvious from the non-toxicity shown by B-17. But even if some of the B-17 is hydrolyzed by body or somatic cells, the very high concentration of the enzyme rhodanese in these cells converts the HCN immediately to relatively non-toxic thiocyanate. (This accounts for the thiocyanate that you find in blood, saliva, etc., as stated above.) How different it is with the neoplastic cell! It contains great quantities of B-glycosidase. Fischman and many others in America have independently shown this in the case of Bglucuronidase. Sometimes there is over 1,000 times as much of this B-glycosidase as in the contiguous normal or body cell. The neoplastic cell is almost completely deficient in the enzyme rhodanese. Recall that when B-17 reaches the cancer cell the B-glycosidase there hydrolyzes it with the release of extremely large quantities of cyanide (relative to the situation in normal body cells). This selective effect occurs in a cell that is almost totally deficient in the enzyme rhodanese, which in normal body cells is present to detoxify cyanide to thiocyanate. Thus, the end result of the presence of one enzyme that causes the selective release of hydrogen cyanide in cancer cells and the absence of another enzyme that normally detoxifies cyanide in body cells, plus an oxidative deficiency (fermentative metabolism) that causes a lag in benzaldehyde oxidation to benzoic acid, result in the selective persistence of free or undetoxified cyanide plus free or unoxidized benzaldehyde which synergistically exert their selective antineoplastic effect. A discussion of the clinical details of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) in animal and human cancer is best left to our clinical students of the subject. They are faced with the fact that today more people per 100,000 of the population are developing cancer and dying from it at an earlier age than any other

168

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

time in the recorded history of the human race. At least one in three of the population develops clinical cancer and probably all develop subclinical neoplasms in the course of a lifetime. The situation, in our opinion, almost identifies itself

in terms of a fulminating deficiency disease a priori.

As our

veterinary friends tell us, even our cats and dogs are showing an incidence of cancer parallel to that of their “‘civilized” owners. Observe how quickly theses animals when released from an apartment or kennel will single out (and eat) such nitriloside rich grasses as Johnson grass, Tunis grass or Sudan grass as a supplement to their diet. Some of these grasses contain as much as 17,000 mg. of nitriloside per kilogram of dry weight! In this presentation we have attempted to touch a vast and relatively unexplored area. But before closing let me introduce a little Yankee humor. It may be sick humor; judge for yourselves. We know of the white bread that will kill 75 percent of hearty rats in 90 days, of calorie-free white sugar, of cola drinks, of fulminating vitamin deficiencies, and the like. But in the United States is one ‘“‘school of nutritional thought”’ that, despite all this, sought to append the following statement to the labels of all bottles of vitamins:

Vitamins and minerals are supplied in abundant amounts by the foods we eat. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods. Except for persons with special needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending routine use of dietary supplements. The lethal commercial white bread is by law supplemented, but not supplemented enough not to kill the rats. It is argued, of course, that this won’t hurt man too much unless he

relies almost solely on this staff of life and is no tougher than the rats! Lest this new vitamin B-17 or nitriloside still be a less concrete reality in your mind than ascorbic acid, thiamine, niacin

Appendix

169

or the like, let me leave you with’an example of a daily ration or diet remarkably rich in nitriloside or vitamin B-17. For breakfast we start with buckwheat, millet and flax-seed gruel: all three cereals are very rich in nitriloside. On our millet bread we put some nitriloside rich elderberry jelly. The stewed apricots we eat carry the nitriloside-rich seeds, which we detect through the delicious almond-like flavor. At lunch we have nitriloside-rich lima beans or possibly a succotash containing nitriloside-rich chick peas. Our millet rolls may be spread with plum jam carrying the nitriloside-rich seeds that add so much to the flavor of the jam. We may choose some nitriloside-rich elderberry wine. For dinner we may have a salad with some nitriloside-rich bean sprouts and nitrilosiderich millet sprouts. Our dinner rolls may be made of nitriloside-rich buckwheat and nitriloside-rich millet and sweetened with nitriloside-rich sorghum molasses extracted from sorghum cane - - almost all of the foregoing are very rich in nitrilosides. For our meat course we may have rabbit that fed on nitriloside-rich clover and as a result carries 5 to 10 times more thiocyanate and nitriloside than animals not so fed. If the milk we drink came from cows that ate fodder rich in nitrilosides this milk will contain as much as 7 times more nitriloside than a cow living on nitriloside-deficient fodder. At the end of the dinner we may choose nitriloside-rich apricot, peach, cherry, or plum brandy’ originally prepared from crushing the entire or whole fruit. We may also choose a number of wild berries very rich in nitrilosides - - all members of the raspberry family. We may nibble on some nitrilosiderich macadamia nuts or chew nitriloside-rich bamboo sprouts. In such a menu of three meals in the course of a day we should ingest over 300 mg. of nitriloside or vitamin B-17 in our foods - - every one of which contained nitriloside. The quantities of the vitamin B-17 in the described foods have been very carefully determined by independent workers over the years. Because of our cultural antipathy to cyanide, our food technology has made every conceivable effort through processing, hybridizing, distilling, etc., to remove every trace of derivable cyanide from foods for man and animal. It is good that this irrationality has not to date, at least, com-

170

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

pletely removed the cyanide-containing vitamin B-12 or cyanocobalamin. Finally, let me conclude with this. In nitriloside or vitamin B-17 we have a new vitamin in which all of us are severely deficient. This fact is beyond question. As to the clinical application of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) in human and animal cancer, we feel that every case is morally entitled to whatever vitamin B-17 can offer, just as every being stricken with scurvy, pellagra, or pernicious anemia is morally entitled, respectively, to vitamin C, niacin, vitamin B-12 and folic acid. Indeed, the matter goes far beyond clinical cancer itself. Mankind can not afford any longer a human and animal population deficient in vitamin C, vitamin B-12, vitamin B-15, vitamin B-17, or any other vitamin essential to animal or human nutrition. However, the capacity of political power for stupidity is truly infinite. We can not predict how long the orderly clinical study of crystalline vitamin B-17 will be delayed. But take some comfort in this. Were vitamin B-12 and folic acid completely proscribed tomorrow, liver would still offer complete salvation in pernicious anemia. Similarly, one gram of defatted apricot seed or kernel carries about 40 milligrams of nitriloside. Six or seven teaspoonsful will supply what our clinical investigators consider an adequate oral dose - - one gram. It is best that the B-glucosidase enzyme be completely heat inactivated in such material. So far as other parts of the world may be concerned, I fear no such described obstruction. In Germany I was very happy to find from four to five propietary and ethical brands of vitamin B-15 (pangamic acid), or its DIPA analogue, and I look forward to seeing a similar distribution of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) very soon. In visiting the great museum in Hanover I was pleased to find in a display of food-stuffs recovered from a Stone Age digging in Europe that of eight food plants shown, three of them are heavy nitriloside-producers. One was Himbeere (Rubus idaeus), another Brombeere (Rubus fruiticosus) and Schwarzer Hollunder (Sambucus niger) or the common elderberry (from which the nitriloside sambunigrin was originally isolated). In the United States the Love-

Appendix

171

lock Caves in Nevada have yielded petrified animals and human feces (fecoliths) that through carbon-dating have been found to go back many years. They showed numerous remnants of nitriloside-bearing plants. Just as the German chemists Huber and Weidel in 1870 first synthesized niacin through fhe oxidation of nicotine about forty years after Wohler and Liebig in your country first isolated and identified the first nitriloside, amygdalin, and just as niacin was destined half a century later to be identified and defined as the factor that prevents and cures pellagra in man, so we find that the nitriloside isolated and identified over a century ago in Germany likewise is now achieving the status of a vitamin -- vitamin B-17. Let us hope that like niacin it has at last left the chemical museum to serve the impelling needs of improved nutrition: Ernst Theodor Krebs, Jr. A noted biochemist, Ernst Krebs, Jr. took his student work at Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia 1938— 1941. He received his AB at the University of Illinois in 1942; he did graduate work at the University of California during 1943-1945, researching in pharmacology during the periods of 1942—1945. He is science director of the John Beard Memorial Foundation, having held this position since 1946. He is president of Cryosec, Inc., and a member of AAAS. He is the author of “Unitarian or Trophoblastic Thesis of Cancer’ (1950); co-discoverer of pangamic acid (1948), the role of pancreatic enzymes in human cancer (1948-1950), and the relevance of the nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17) to animal and human nutrition. This paper is a summary of remarks presented in German before a congress of the International Medical Society for Blood and Tumor Disease, November 7, 1970, in BadenBaden, West Germany. On this occasion, the author received an award honoring his discovery and research on vitamin B-15 (pangamic acid) and vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). NOTE:

The list of references has been omitted from this printing in the interest of brevity.

biz

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

It may be found at the end of the original article in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Fall Edition, 1970.

*THE JOURNAL OF* *APPLIED NUTRITION* Published at Los Angeles by the International College of Applied Nutrition. All Rights Reserved. c 1970 International College of Applied Nutrition, Inc. Printed by Kruckeberg Press. Editorial Office 117 N. Euclid La Habra, Calif.

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Harold Stone, D.D.S. La Habra, Calif.

Office of Secretary Box 386 La Habra, Calif. 90637

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Granville Knight, M.D. Robert Bingham, M.D. Santa Monica, Calif.

Riverside, Calif.

Edwin P. Arthur, B.E.Ch.E. Fullerton, Calif.

EDITORIAL BOARD William A. Albrecht

Howard H. Hillemann, Ph.D.

Columbia, Missouri

Corvallis, Oregon

James W. Carson, D.D.S. Los Angeles, Calif.

— Chauncey D. Leake, Ph.D. San Francisco, Calif.

Jonathon Foreman, M.D. Dublin, Ohio

John A. Myers, M.D. Baltimore, Maryland

Douglas Kerr, D.D.S. San Francisco, Calif.

W. D. Currier, M.D. Pasadena, Calif.

Miloslav Recheigl, Ph.D.

Joseph D. Walters, M.D.

Bethesda, Maryland

Sherman Oaks, Calif.

ABSTRACTS EDITOR John J. Miller, Ph.D.

EXECUTIVE SEC’Y Alberta Stone

West Chicago, III,

La Habra, Calif.

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED NUTRITION makes available to dentists, physicians, nutritionists, biochemists, and

Li3

174

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

agronomists, scientific articles, editorials, news items, book reviews and abstracts which stress the practical application of nutritional knowledge. In the broadest sense the science of nutrition includes all factors affecting the production and distribution of food, as well as those influencing the health of plants and animals consuming. and utilizing such food. Original articles pertinent to the purposes of this Journal are solicited. Well documented articles augmented by clear, helpful illustrations and a concise summary will receive first consideration. It is understood that articles will not be submitted elsewhere for publication while under consideration by the Journal. Unused manuscripts will be returned. The Journal and the Editorial Board cannot accept responsibility for the opinion and statements of the authors of published articles. Freedom of expression is encouraged.

EDITORIAL COMMENT ON DR. KREBS’ PAPER Scientific discoveries are nurtured from dedicated scientists working against great odds and handicaps. Discoveries which are felt insignificant at the time of reporting, often take on great magnitude and significance, years, if not decades, following the report. Stimulating controversy is extremely important in scientific advances. We must encourage and stimulate independent research in the United States and promote freedom of expression of the ideas. This is the day of awakening to the hidden nutritional values of food and the enrichment of food which has been depleted by manufacturing processes. We must be encouraged, indeed stimulated, that Dr. Ernst

T. Krebs has steadfastly continued through these many years, to investigate food factors not heretofore specifically defined and identified. The cyanophoric glycosides, which he proposes be called nitrilosides, have been extremely well demonstrated in this paper, and apparently, have a wide-spread distribution. One must surely consider that these molecules are physiologically and nutritionally relevant to the nutrition of animals and especially human beings. The specific relationship as to their function within the metabolic organism needs to be defined and further investigated. Perhaps these nitrilosides may someday prove to be as important food factors as essential amino acids, unsaturated fatty acids, tract minerals,

and other specific vitamins identified and described during the past century. Speculation as to the beneficial or detrimental effects of these substances needs to be evaluated and considered. Fresh approaches to the prevention rather than treatment of disease must be encouraged. Intellectual quizzing and speculation as to the role these molecules play, no matter how strange or diabolically opposed by current physiological thinking, should not be suppressed. Dr. Krebs is to be commended on his thoroughness. His evaluation of the nitrilosides is well documented in his bibliographies. Let us listen, evaluate, question, and measure the effects that his paper might have throughout the metabolic world. Robert A. Elliot, M.D.

175

= sori storeVic Pee oay anhirmbe dire

ite Rs rey

he eetemdorinieeyin

quitorgpncs it anus SH pannel

aed

Trier

hie) Comte eT,

Sertaunisteie: rsh erga prick hibit.ster

abirand entRta Teneo es Sih BF SBD TP hye” Ue regmaterti gedipa enamine? be AAR OAL GTM? a (Deg. Exiodank| Lborsitimiia) pantals’

Seis Rumen dsSG poieerniae Anche

ree AT

BehlbiMdoRisigusuetemnal updos) Bie? Bkglteaal of

oy Sef tubiw sbhorgg Shedqensy ofl bofenebt one pees tig” qismnlés 1099 een 2obi-cibiin belles-od emogg ath Des tre- shiv & sreh. eitaesgge bad «99g ett ol ‘betieieg ne woatoi

soar) Todd whinge ylswe many nO

.

nore

40i sunagtun on? of Insvsior vilsnoltiaie bad vileigcloryidos

Hosier ois afbok Mating excita (t)

sat

2qnied Haemit vilainoges iim giana.

pilodsish sai MGW meio | tied) GY an que

2 pik? aqain: 4

hatigies

es 770106) ‘hoot Monon

in te Ae)

bik baniieb

23.07 a8 svoid Teoma

ad of

Ys m sole

sieretio Aas Abisn. VIIe? Dedwuiaany..broe onlutia leiiahes Shieh bocieRoh has hilinsi wiisly sine wdic bra

Quine? req ok

f

ie Gyslis lidvtatn ttt ah 310 Taiotienod or) 0) em noltalieGge

feast Ltsabienoy bow Gelnuls's Sef 0) cbeen eeeiedie cect emeib Io Insiasit ign verter nultiovo1g oft 0? cabo

7

OH a) OSSs Sop wiisxy: wv) fetttoeorndl

ya

bowenisans ad sera

46 saphiety WolleiInn on out eoluselon gest aloe af OF” ected) feokgetorn, qhonwa yd. baegaa. Yleatodsdy Aseanyqie sd-108 biome”

ott

aasevighorel? cht ae batnnanstes 4d of af 2dmR sd

clits alk, Re si ninesiSOD fing algubbeolirtar adYoolny, :

oii itrapron Bnd sioleetp, mteotnve noel sy Jot

oBodeiany Wetasonta 3

THE TROPHOBLAST THEORY OF CANCER* 4

(John Beard, 1857-1924)

REVISITED

by Charles Gurchot

Scientific Director of McNaughton Foundation San Ysidro, California

* Reprinted with permission from Oncology, S. Karger AG,

Basel, Switzerland.

LE

178

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited Key Words. Germ cell - Asexual generation — sexual generation Trophoblast - Repression — depression of genes - Phorozoon

Abstract. Beard’s theory can be restated in a modified form in modern terms in the following way. Cancer represents primarily tro-

phoblastic tissue derived either from an aberrant germ cell or from a somatic cell whose normally repressed ‘asexual generation’ genes are abnormally reactivated (‘derepressed). The variety of tumors, other than teratomas, may be due to a parallel chance derepression of some genes of somatic (‘sexual generation’) characters. This would be a defensive reaction against intramural parasitization by trophoblast and would result in the differentiation and hyperplasia of normally present more primitive somatic cells.

It is now more than 70 years since the Edinburgh zoologist and embryologist, John Beard, described his theory of cancer etiology from aberrant germ cells and trophoblast. The theory has biochemical overtones and is only one aspect of his wide-ranging biological investigations. Whatever the theory’s merits it deserves careful examination now in view of the directions cancer investigation has followed recently (92-94). Beard’s theory (1) was discussed in detail in 1911. As theories go, and whether right or wrong, it represents a successful effort of correlating many fields of biology as they apply to cancer. However, Beard’s investigations in cancer were meant to be only an interlude in his much more extensive studies in zoology and comparative embryology. His conclusions in these fields were perhaps more revolutionary and at variance with accepted ideas than were his conclusions about the etiology of cancer. By many of his colleagues Beard’s work was regarded very highly, and they deplored his excursion into cancér because it shifted the focus of importance away from his remarkable work as a biologist. Beard himself considered his cancer work a side issue. He pursued it as a humanitarian and because of the social implications of that disease. Superficially Beard’s cancer theory may appear a complex variation of what he termed the Remak-Cohnheim theory of embryonic-rests. Since Oberling’s (87) discussion

of it in 1946, the theory has been well-nigh forgotten. It deserves a brief restatement in Oberling’s words:

Gurchot

179

“As early as 1829, two French investigators, Lobstein and Recamier, attributed the origin of tumors to the proliferation of embryonal cells that had persisted into adulthood. Their suggestion, actually the first rational hypothesis on the origin of cancer, attracted enthusiastic support all through the 19th century. Johannes Muller, Paget, Remark, Durante, Cohnheim, and many others took it up and contributed original views and a formidable body of evidence that have done much to increase our knowledge of neoplasia. The idea of embryonal origin, though born of clinical observation, received from the very first the substantial support of pathologists. The microscopic appearance of cancer, with its multitude of cells and swarms of mitotic figures, is not without resemblance to that of embryonal tissue, and the likeness must have been particularly impressive in those early years when the technic of the microscope was so rudimentary as hardly to permit the recognition of minute structures. But embryonic tissue in all stages of development have been inoculated into countless adult animals, and always with the same outcome; they never changed their character, but continued to act as they do in the embryo, growing for a time but ending as mature tissues’ (87, p. 31).

In spite of the disappointing negative outcome of the experimental tests the embryonic-rest theory remains provocative. In a sense, theoretically, it sidles rather close to cancer, but it leaves out the role of the germ cells and especially of what Beard called the asexual generation of the vertebrate life cycle. They apply to cancer, and are crucial to Beard’s theory as it will be explained later. Unfortunately Beard appears, at first sight, to clash head on with verified conclusions at the cellular level and with biochemical observations, almost universally believed not to be accounted for in the trophoblast theory, in spite of those concepts in Beard’s theory which bear, in an important manner, upon phenomena associated with cancer. There is a general reluctance to attach the term trophoblast to pathological tissues which, although sharing properties with the trophoblast do not look like trophoblast and may be rather different from one another. However, these differences may be resolved. Moreover, the many similarities between cancer and trophoblast are striking and have been observed, enumerated and described on many occasions (2-12).

Presumptive, perhaps too simplistic, stereochemical similarities too were explored by Beard (1, pp. 143-165; 76) and described in a primitive experimental manner. His idea

180

Gurchot

in this area was briefly described in 1940 (13) and briefly reviewed in that same year (14). However, the most extensive evidence to date of a possible relation between cancer and trophoblast is the close similarity of the endocrine profile, as well as the immunological properties of the two tissues (14, 93). The endocrine profile, reported for unspecified hormones in 1936, 1938 and 1941 (88-91) was brought up to date by Krebs in 1973 (15). Human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) has been reported in cases of carcinoma of the lung (16, 17) and other cancers, as well as HCG-like reactions in large series (18): Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) has been found in cancer of the thyroid (19), parathyroid (20), thymus (21, 22), lung (23-27), ovary (28), testicle (29), breast, prostate and pancreas (30, 31), in other cancers (32, 33), and in carcinoid tumors (34-39). Thyroid-stimulating hormone (HCT) was found in chorion (40, 41), in male choriocarcinoma (42), in a bronchial carcinoma (43), and in 1967 in eight females with choriocarcinoma (44). In 1967, HCT was immunologically and biologically identified in bronchial carcinoma (45) and found in association with HCG (46-48). In 1969, HCT was found to be antigenically distinct from pituitary thyrotropin (51). Growth hormone (GH) was reported in lung cancer (50). A melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH) was found in cancer of the pancreas along with ACTH (51) and again in another cancer (52). High titers of GH were found in the urine of cancer patients and pregnant women. The contention was made that properly performed

studies would always reveal both ACTH and MSH (30). In addition to the above review a recent detailed study by Braunstein et al. (53) of a heterogeneous series of 918 causes of testicular, gastrointestinal, hemopoietic, lymphomatous, sarcomatous, breast, bronchogenic, insulinomatous, mediastinal and melanomatous cancers revealed the presence

of HCG in 113 cases. Tests for other hormones were not made. In view of the properties of cancer tissues of all types, and their hormone profiles, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion of whether or not cancer is of trophoblastic origin —it doubtlessly behaves very much like trophoblast. Hence

Gurchot

181

In the report of Braunstein et al. (53) the highest incidence of HCG secretion occurs in teratomatous and frankly trophoblastic cancers. This is to be expected where the trophoblast is morphologically recognizable, i.e., in cases where it is not permeated or mixed with somatic cells which could inhibit its hormone production either actively or simply by decreasing its relative mass. Scirrhus growths with their abundant fibrous tissue could be expected to be poor hormone producers. Lending additional support to the close similarity between cancer and trophoblast are the antiinflammatory effects of both cancer and trophoblast reported by Fauve et al. (93). These authors are aware that an analogy between cancer and trophoblast has been proposed before, including the implication that this analogy adds weight to the importance of their results. However, neither Beard nor reference to his work is mentioned. Another example of a similarity, less compelling because as yet it may not be exclusive, is reported by Currie and Bagshawe (94) who state that ““...a sialomucin similar to placental fibrinoid has been found on the surface of malignant cells. . .” (94). Furthermore, Manes (92) made the suggestion that a possible somatic resurgence of trophoblast by the activation of gene systems could explain malignant transformation. This view is somewhat similar to the conclusion offered in this paper. Manes also recognizes the suggestion made by Beard and refers to his work of 1902. It is the purpose of this report to attempt to establish a reasonable argument that these and other analogies, including hormone profiles, are not simply coincidental, but suggest instead something approaching a biological imperative. It must be kept in mind that Beard used in his cancer theory a rather unorthodox terminology derived from his equally unorthodox general biological concepts. This makes the understanding and acceptance of his views today somewhat difficult. Space does not permit even a general summary of the work of Beard. His work encompasses a complete reorientation in general zoology and comparative embryology. It includes the introduction of a logical order in biology approach similar to that of the physical sciences without

182

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

specifically borrowing from them. But so far as only cancer and the use of Beard’s above-mentioned orientation in it is concerned, the following summary may suffice. The implications will be discussed later. A quotation from Beard may be inserted here since it epitomizes his views on epigenesis which are basic to everything he has proposed (1, pp. 54-55): ‘In the higher animals — the Metazoa — what is termed “direct development” does not, and cannot exist. It has been found that the cycle of animal development, even of the highest forms, resembles very closely that of a fern or flowering plant (table I). In the line from egg to egg there are two generations — an asexual form, and one which, as it is the bearer of sexual organs, is spoken of as the sexual generation. Under prevailing views of development the line of ancestry from generation to generation is exceedingly simple — too simple, indeed, to explain the facts; so simple that Nature could not adopt it in practice, were she to make the trial. It may be represented thus: egg * embryo or sexual generation » egg + embryo, etc., the egg producing the embryo; the latter, when mature, forming from its own tissues new eggs. This is, undoubtedly, the most impossible conception which ever formed part of a science. The amended cycle of development and the course of heredity are as follows: egg + trophoblast (phorozoon or bearing animal, asexual generation) + primitive germ cell + primary germ > fertilized egg (fig. 1). In the line of ancestry, as given here, a line which apart from the asexual generation, is one of unicellular organisms, the embryo finds no place. It arises from one of the primary germ cells, whose number is always a definite one — 2, 4, 8, 16, 62, etc. — and the rest enter the embryonic body to form its sexual products.... The four important items in the cycle are: (1) The gametes, eggs and sperm, by whose union to form a zygote, a new cycle is initiated; (2) the first product of the zygote, the phorozoon, trophoblast or asexual generation; (3) the primary germ cells, destined for future generations, and (4), only important to enable the completion of the cycle, the embryo or sexual generation.’

Now a summary of Beard’s views regarding cancer can be given in these terms. (1) All living embryonic and adult organisms are differentiated offshoots from an unending, potentially immortal stream of germ cells. The differentiated offshoot is a sheltering device for the life cycle. (2) Within each life cycle, including the embryo, the germ cells are transferred from one generation (asexual) to the next generation (sexual).

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

183

(3) A considerable number of germ cells (primary and possibly some secondary, depending upon the species) are lost or displaced from the unending stream during migration into an embryo. The displaced germ cells never reach the gonads which are the instruments of the sexual generation to propel and perpetuate the germ cell stream. (4) With the exception of sponges and hydra all life cycles are composed of, or include, 2 alternating generations; an asexual, having no sex organs, followed by a sexual generation, possessing sex organs. The alternation occurs in mammals also. (S) The asexual and sexual generations are mutually antithetic. In specific and normal circumstances each generation exists in toleration or at the expense of the other when the word antagonistic properly describes the relationship. (6) The pregnancy trophoblast represents the mammalian asexual generation (table II). (7) Cancer in man represents the activity of an “‘irresponsible” trophoblast evoked from dispersed germ cells attemping, through gametogenesis, to repeat the life cycle in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and under circumstances disastrous to the life cycle as well as the host in which the attempt is made. Point 7 of the above summary requires modification. This will constitute a departure from, or perhaps an addition to Beard’s postulates. The modification is necessary because we know that all cancers do not originate from germ cells. Points 1, 2 and 3 indicate what is in the process of being generally accepted, namely that teratomas originate from germ cells (54), not from “budding.” The latter, sometimes a somewhat vague term, indicates an embryonic or somatic origin. Budding has been perhaps most thoroughly studied in the armadillo, which regularly produce identical twins from buds that are clearly evoked from germ cells, not from embryonic cells (55-57). Benign teratomas too could develop from germ cells, but for some at least, if not all, there is a more logical explanation. To clarify the status of teratomas it is useful to examine present status of the primitive,

184

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

primary and secondary germ cells and their relation to the gametes.

By 1960, in spite of the ever increasing evidence favoring the precocious and somatically independent existence of the germ cells, and their exclusive role in the formation of gametes, some biologists still held that the issue was not settled. Since then the controversy has been fast eroding away, especially under the impact of the very ingenious studies by Mintz (58), Smith (59), Meyer (60), and Reynard (61). Of course no one will formally announce that the germ cells have been finally liberated from the long apotheosis of the soma. The issue more nearly resembles the fate of old soldiers who never die but simply fade away. Not only have the germ cells regained their freedom but their vicissitudes as described by Beard (62, 63) have been and continue to be verified (54, 64, 65). Not only is every embryo produced by the unfolding of a primary germ cell (embryonic in destiny according to Beard), not only do we know now that the remainder of the primary germ cells migrate toward the mesodermal gonadal folds to become secondary germ cells and ultimately gametes, but that in many cases they multiply as they go (65) — except perhaps in birds in which the germ cells migrate through the bloodstream —so that their total number may increase many times. According to Witschi (65), ““during the migratory period they are ameboid and their number continues to increase by repeated mitoses. As migration ends they total 5,000 or more.” According to Beard, 10-30% do not reach the gonadal folds and are dispersed, depending upon the species, to come to rest finally at extra-gonadal sites where, interestingly enough, most teratomas and cancers occur. Some of the displaced cells degenerate and some involute (62, 63). These aberrant germ cells should normally have no further function, but in man, evoke, some of them, all teratomas — certainly the malignant teratomas — and possibly some benign teratomas, and at least some cancers — how many is uncertain in view of an alternative origin of the asexual generation (the trophoblast) to be discussed later.

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

185

According to Stevens (54), ““Teratomas are derived from germ cells...extragonadal teratomas are rare and they are thought to be derived from germ cells that became misplaced during their migration from the yolk sac to the genital ridge during the fetal life.” Bresler (66) concludes that testicular teratomas are started by “‘pathological cleavage of spermatogonia and formation of three germ layers... and a trophoblast.” Only the trophoblast is invasive and metastasizes. Bresler also reports the formation of teratomas for adult spermatogonia (67). This is important because it would indicate that an adult spermatogonium is still totipotent and capable of undergoing gametogenesis (growth and ripening) to produce an ovum rather than a spermatozoon to possess the capacity for evoking trophoblast if a malignant teratoma is to result (2, pp. 156-159). If the teratoma is benign, that is without evocation of trophoblast, the adult spermatogonium would have undergone embryogenesis such as a primary germ cell can achieve, without the development of that stage of gametogenesis, necessary for the evocation of a trophoblast. It is doubtful that Beard would have agreed with this for he believed that secondary germ cells lost their power of independent development. He would probably not have accepted the possibility of a spermatogonium reverting to a primary germ cell without first going through gametogenesis and cleavage as an egg. But like the question of a primary germ cell having to be “‘embryonic in destiny” to evoke an embryo — about which more later — these are intricacies in the details of his deceptively simple theory of cancer from trophoblast and aberrant germ cells which he may not have lived long enough to clarify. But evidently no trophoblast can be evoked from an unchanged primary germ cell, and that change can be nothing else than the change to a secondary germ cell followed by gametogenesis. Before a germ cell can produce a trophoblast (as well as an embryo later) it must develop to the stage of gametogenesis — but only growth and ripening, not necessarily meiosis also, and certainly not only meiosis (table I). In mammals gametogenesis and meiosis are closely related in time and space, but they are separate processes and serve dif-

“£E86

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

ferent functions. Meiosis effects the redistribution and reduction of the chromosomes for eventual amphimixis with the chromosomes of the gamete of the opposite sex during fertilization if there is one. Meiosis plays no role in the preparation of the gametes for the purpose of evoking and separating during cleavage those blastomeres which will be the antecedents or anlagen of the trophoblast. Normally the male gamete, per se, does not provide cellular anlagen that form trophoblast. This is evident in view of a parthenogenesis. In the testis for example, a spermatogonium still in a stage corresponding to that of a secondary germ cell, could evoke trophoblastic anlagen abnormally and produce a malignant teratoma parthenogenetically. The distinctive places and functions that separate gametogenesis from meiosis are illustrated by the fact that in some plants reduction occurs before gametogenesis which is essentially growth and ripening (table I). In animals meiosis occurs after gametogenesis. Beard puts the matter succinctly: The formation of the primary germ cells in the skate — and all probability in every other Metazoon — corresponds broadly to genesis of spore-mother-cells on the asexual generation of a plant, sporophyte. With this recognition it becomes possible to compare gether, so as to show their essential similarity, the phenomena of

in the the tothe

life-cycles of the Metazoa and Metaphyta. (95)

Another interesting conclusion, drawn by Stevens (54), is that “the high degree or repeatability of experimental induction of teratomas in the mouse suggests that the neoplastic change is not the result of genetic mutation. It seems more reasonable that the activity of the genes has been changed in the environment provided by the adult testis.” This theme will be discussed in some detail later. In spite of the major role played by the germ cells and trophoblast in Beard’s theory of cancer the hub of the matter is the existence, role and functioning of the asexual generation of the life-cycle. While seeking an explanation of the properties of cancer cells we emphasize glycolysis, increased proliferation rate and invasiveness which are, after all, properties of normal cells too. The difference between cancer and normal cells is not

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

187

simply quantitative but qualitative. The emphasis should be placed on the eroding, spreading, and destructive properties of cancer cells as well as the toxic and wasting effect of cancer upon its host. These properties are not explained by those that cancer shares with normal cells. Beard expresses this in the following

way: ‘Reviewing matters, starting with the fertilized egg, this gives rise to an asexual generation — the trophoblast, upon which there arises an “apical cell” —the primitive germ cell. This latter divides a certain limited number of times, this number being a fixed one for the species; but while it is nm in the male, it is m plus 1 in the female. The products are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. In the diagram (fig. 1) it is depicted as 128. These 128 germ cells are the primary germ cells. It is they which enter the embryonic body when this arises, and it is some of them which come to occupy all sorts of abnormal positions. But all the line of primary germ cells are not destined for future generations. Some few of them, 1, 2, 4 or 8, are embryonic in destiny. At least one of these must unfold to form an embryo. If any of the others do so, the result is identical twins, triplets, etc. If any of these “embryonic” germ cells lie dormant within the developed embryo, they may become the seed of future tumors, as will appear later on. The line of heredity so far revealed, Jeads from fertilized egg to the primary germ cells, and thence through all the history of the germ cells, within the “‘reproductive glands” to new eggs and sperm; that is, all things considered, the cycle is one of unicellular organisms, the germ cells, in the history of which the sexual generation or individual is but an incident. (1, pp. 128-129) ‘In animals and plants two modes of reproduction are recognized, the sexual one by means of germ cells, eggs and sperm, and the asexual by budding, which is really a process of continuous indefinite cell division, with no eggs or sperm. In an animal or plant a sexual generation is one which bears reproductive organs, in which eggs or sperm or both arise. On the other hand, an asexual generation of an animal or plant is one which never bears reproductive organs, eggs or sperm or both, but which reproduces in the way indicated above, really by cell division. In plants the asexual division is the flowering plant which is capable of indefinite unrestricted increase, as, for example, a hybrid rose or... chrysanthemum. Originally there was but one plant of each of these. The sexual generation of a flowering plant is a small microscopic entity contained within the flower. In animals all the individuals which bear sexual organs belong to the sexual generation, while the asexual generations are represented in various ways. Thus in the sea polyps, the colony of polyps, while here the medusae or “jelly-fish” are sexual; in worms, starfish, etc., by what are known as Jarvae, while here the worm,

188

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

starfish, etc., are sexual; and lastly, in the highest animals or mammals the asexual generation is present only during uterine life, as what Hubrecht termed the trophoblast. (1, p. 13)

At this point we are aware of a discrepancy between Beard’s conclusion that the number of primary germ cells is a constant for the species-specific number postulated by Beard for the species of fishes he studied. The discrepancy can be explained. Beard’s highest species number of primary germ cells is elasmobrachs is written as 512 etc. — the product of eight cellular divisions of the primitive germ cell, or apical cell. Hence Beard does not exclude, generally, primary germ cell numbers higher than 512. If 512 cells were to undergo, in some animals, three more divisions their total would be 4,096 cells. This is nearly the number of dispersed germ cells (5,000 or more) counted by Witschi in human embryos (64). Also, Beard points out that, “For the extremely large number of eggs produced by many invertebrates it would appear necessary not only for large numbers of secondary germ cells to exist but for commensurably large numbers of primary germ cells as well.” The secondary germ cells would be those normally formed from primary germ cells after reaching the gonadal folds. “In the skate this formation of secondary germ cells precedes the announcement of the sex of the embryo and is possibly casually related to it (96). TABLE

II

Life-cycles (from Beard: 1, p. 263) Name

Asexual Generation

Sexual Generation

Nemertine Sponge Sea urchin Hydra Hydroid polype (Campanularia) Raja batis

Phildium Sponge-larva & adult Pluteus Hydra Hydroid colony

Nemertean worm Absent Sea urchin Absent Medusa

Blastoderm, transient

Skate

nervous system, etc.

Mammal (e.g., man or rabbit)

_

Trophoblast (chorion)

Mammal

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

189

We come now to the reciprocal relations between the asexual and sexual generations that reflect the spreading and destructive properties of cancer cells. What we are dealing with here is a peculiar phenomenon or, better, two phenomena: One is the enzymatic proteolysis of one live tissue by the enzymes of another live tissue. These two tissues represent two morphogenetically different organisms within the same life cycle (table I, II). Hence the importance of considering their behavior as that of two antithetic generations, as Beard described it, both very much alive and potentially aggressive toward each other (1, pp. 54-55) even though they belong to the same life-cycle. The second phenomenon is the unlimited power of growth best illustrated in plants by the sporophyte that can multiply indefinitely from cuttings and grafts; and also by the trophoblast’s potentially unlimited growth capacity as well as a normal permeating invasive tendency directed into the maternal organism during a normal pregnancy. Since the asexual generation in all forms shelters the germ cells before the embryo is evoked as the second lap for the unending stream, the early nutrition of the embryo must be provided for. This early nutrition has to be provided by the asexual generation, the first in the life-cycle to develop. For this nutritive function the asexual generation has special properties. The embryonic organism, appearing later than the asexual generation, cannot actively feed itselfin its early stage; hence the asexual generation’s embryo-nursing function. All young or immature invertebrate organisms are generally called larvae. From Beard’s viewpoint this is confusing and imprecise because some are asexual and others are sexual generation organisms. This obviously would lead to confusion. Beard cuts the Gordian knot by coining the word “phorozoon” (Greek for “bearing animal’) to describe the asexual generation “larvae,” reserving the word’ embryo for the immature sexual generation. The mammalian phorozoon is the trophoblast. Phorozoa in invertebrates, trophoblast in mammals, chorioallantois in other forms, provide the pantry for the early embryos developing upon or within phorozoa from primary germ cells, resulting from the multi-

plication of that apical primitive germ cell that reappeared

190

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

(or came again into existence) at the end of cleavage (1, pp. 128-129). That the phorozoon and the embryo are distinct and virtually separate organisms is shown by the fact that in invertebrates, where this is easily observed (for example Echinoderms), the body axis of the phorozoon is perpendicular to the body axis of the embryo (69); and as both developments are traced the embryo is observed to grow at the expense of the phorozoon which is eventually absorbed (69). As Beard described the process, the disposal of the phorozoon by the embryo is not a “substitution of organs” as one biologist suggested, but a substitution of organisms. Since an early embryo has neither prehensile nor killing devices it, in effect, preserves the phorozoon while gradually digesting and absorbing it. In this type of proteolytic digestion of and by live tissues Beard detected an enantiomorphic stereochemical relationship, based on the work of Pasteur. In view of the complex character of modern stereo-chemistry Beard’s conclusions in this area are weak‘or simplistic at the moment. They are not essential to our present discussion (1, pp. 255-264). Since the trophoblast represents the mammalian asexual generation it would follow logically that: “During the first week of implantation (it) literally eats its way into the maternal stroma’ (70, 72, pp. 3748). The antithesis — the digestion operating in the reverse direction, which normally should occur in the later stages of pregnancy is not as clearcut, but the phenomenon is there. Hertig states: “Another thing to remember about invasive moles, as about trophoblast in general, is their inherent tendency to undergo spontaneous involution” (72). And, according to Patten (71): “From the standpoint of functional significance in the development of the embryo one would stress the exuberant development of the trophoblast during the period of invasion, followed by the gradual reduction of the epithelial layers of the villi after their invasive role has been carried out, and the thinning thereby of the amount of tissue for which the interchanges between the fetal and maternal blood

takes place.”

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

19]

In analogy, but more actively, the living pluteus (the asexual generation of sea urchirs); the pilidium of nemertine worms; or the trochophore of Nereis, are gradually digested live and absorbed by their respective embryos developing from primary germ cells within their asexual generation pre-

cursors, until nothing remains of the phorozoa (1, pp. 255264; 69, 73, 74). Similar phenomena occur in vertebrates (68, 75). During pedogenesis, in the fly genus Miastor for example, the normal embryo, a normal guest in the body tissues of its mother — which is also an embryo but in a later stage — and surrounded by its chorion deep within the embryonic tissues of the mother insect, digests its way through and out of the live body of the mother embryo which is left to die (77). An analogous phenomenon occurs in the case of the small tapeworm Tenia echinococcus. Here the inner cystic envelope formed by the worm’s asexual generation occasionally proliferates into the alveolaris modification to erode and spread throughout the human host’s tissues, while usually, it is kept in check as a hydatid cyst by a tough fibrous membrane formed by the parasitized soma which covers and invests, and limits the inner cystic envelope of the parasite. So much like cancer is the alveolaris modification that it was at one time diagnosed as colloid cancer until Virchow recognized its true nature (78). Another peculiar situation of this type is occasionally encountered in incubating eggs of birds (79), fishes (80) and insects (81) in the event that there is no noticeable or normal embryonic development within the blastoderm. In such eggs, a peculiar mass grows, a de-

velopment of chorioallantoic tissue and other equivalents of the mammalian trophoblast, at the expense of a destroyed or abnormal embryo. The above are a few examples — there are many more — of the normal and also of the accidental antithetic relations manifested by the two generations of the life-cycle in different animals. According to Beard, asexual-sexual anthithesis is a universal phenomenon of which cancer is but a special case.

192

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited TABLE

I

Revised comparison of animal and plant life-cycles (from Beard: 1, p. 127)

Animal

ASEXUAL

Plant

GENERATION

Zygote or fertilized egg (2n)

; Zygote or fertilized egg (2n)

Phorozoon or trophoblast

Sporophyte or flowering plant (2n)

Formation of primitive germ cell (2 n)

Formation of primitive spore mother cell (2 n)

Formation of primary germ cells (2 n)

Formation of spore mother cells (2 n); reduction and sex determination

“Apospory” (reducation postponed)

Spore formation

SEXUAL

GENERATION

Primary germ cell (2 n)

Spore (1 n)

Origin of embryo by unfoldding of primary germ cell, inclusion of rest in the individual of the sexual generation

Origin of sexual generation or gametophyte from one spore (1 n)

(2n) Ripening of germ cells; Reduction and sex determination

Ripening of germ cells; Reduction previously effected.

fee nnn Rye phere sina Sperm

Egg

pays

SS

Sperm

Pleo

1 n = Reduced number of chromosomes, and I n signifies the emancipated cell; 2 n= duplicated or conjugated cell, the “conjugation” or joining together being carried out at fertilization. The “reduction” is the undoing of the previous duplication effected at conjugation.

Fig. 1. Beard’s original diagram to explain his concept of two alternating generations in the life-cycle of animals (1, p. 124). The original legend is the following: “Diagram of the life cycle of a backboned animal, such as a fish or a mammal, illustrating the union of egg and sperm, E and S, to form the zygote, Z, the origin of the phorozoon or asexual generation (trophoblast), the germinal track from Z to U.K.Z., the latter being the primitive germ cell. The divisions of the latter are carried to seven mitoses or cell-divisions, as in some male dogfish (in a

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

193

potential female embryo there would be an additional division, giving 256 primary germ cells). Diagrammatfcally, the unfolding of one primary germ-cell, the 66th, is depicted as forming an embryo or sexual generation. To complete the track of heredity from generation to generation through the morphological continuity of the germ-cells a diagram of oogenesis or egg formation has been appended to the 96th germ-cell, and one of spermatogenesis or sperm-formation to the 32nd. In the former the formation of a male egg and of a female egg is shown, in the latter the two forms of sperms (as in the fresh-water snail, Paludina, after the statements of F. Meves), i.e. the hair-like or functional, and the worm-like or functionless sperm. The additional division in the formation of functional male eggs should be noted. It accords with the additional division to form primary germ-cells in the development of a female.”

If, apart from choriomas and teratomas, cancer in mammals is usually a mixture of masked trophoblastic and somatic tissues — the ambient somatic tissues proliferating either as a result of stimulation by or as attempted protection against the trophoblast, or for other reasons — where does the trophoblast come from if not from germ cells? If Beard is right, at least some nonteratomatous cancers may originate from aberrant germ cells. However, since it is now well established experimentally that cancer can be induced in vitro physically (radiation), chemically (carcinogens) or biologically (viruses) from virtually any somatic cell we can assume that such induction can occur in vivo also. In fact we know it does. The morphological character and clinical manifestations of animal and accidental, chemically induced, human cancers are so similar that a basic identity between a formal etiology of in vitro and in vivo cancer is justified. The results of experimentally induced cancer are so extensive and so well known that no summary will be attempted at this time (97, 98). Since Beard’s explanation of malignant tumor formation based on germ cell origin alone will not suffice, a more inclusive explanation is required. In view of the progress of chemical genetics such an explanation can be formulated. Although it represents a correction of Beard’s general thesis it also tends to validate hi$ principal conclusion, namely the role of trophoblast in cancer.

194

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

The basis for a more inclusive explanation than Beard’s obligatory germ cell origin of cancer is the experimentally derived generalization that “‘all cells have a fund of genetic information which they do not use or express’’ (82). In other words, the function of any cell represents the result of the greater or lesser expression of the “information” contained in the cell’s complete genetic potential and the repression of the remainder in a physiological or pathological manner. From this a correction of Beard’s theory follows logically. The source of the genetic information remains intact because “the whole blueprint is faithfully copied at each cell division, from that of the fertilized ovum to those (divisions) taking place in the mature adult organism” (82). Thus in a gamete or zygote, the portion of the genetic potential representing the sexual generation is repressed. If there are dynamic degrees of repression of genes — which is probable as we will see — the repressors of the sexual generation must be firmly held at this stage. On the other hand the repressors of the asexual generation’s genetic potential are loosely held as a result of gametogenesis. This appears to be necessary to allow for the actual evocation of the asexual generation during cleavage. In a gamete, or zygote before cleavage, the still unexpressed asexual generation potentiality would be on its mark as it were, ready to be evoked or completely derepressed at the onset of cleavage. Cleavage would therefore represent the number of divisions required to evoke the cellular analagen that would unfold or differentiate into asexual generation tissues. At the end of cleavage, all asexual

potentialities having been evoked, Beard’s “apical cell” will appear, known as the primitive germ cell, in which the asexual generation repressors are in full force again. At this point the blastocyst would be fully formed; but not resting. The primitive germ cell would begin the series of divisions to form the species-specific number of primary germ cells (fig. 1). These would collect at first in, and make up part of, the inner cell mass. It is very improbable that the number of primary germ cells in the inner cell mass can ever be the total speciesspecific number Beard observed, for example, in elasmobrachs (1, pp. 54-55; 62). But it is probable that the germ cells in

the inner cell mass are those that are ““embryonic in destiny”

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

195

since the inner cell mass stagg is immediately followed by the formation of an embryonic disk. Although the primary germ cells have been observed, so far, to migrate only from the yolk sac, it is reasonable to assume that the species-specific number is being developed before the yolk sac stage. In any case the primary germ cells very likely lose no time migrating into the developing embryo to multiply as they go before they reach the gonadal folds (65). They will develop eventually into gametes by way of secondary germ cells (1, pp. 54-55) or they might develop as embryo-forming cells if the proper — probably very proper —

environment

is available. This could occur in a blastocyst,

less likely in a later embryo except in pedogenesis, and, very unlikely, in an adult organism. This may appear contradictory, but more about it later. Development in a blastocyst would be the usual, normal embryogenesis. Except for pedogenesis which normally occurs in the fly genus Miastor, and without the lethal result, in some axolotl (Ambystoma), embryogenesis might occur from a primary germ cell within an embryo or adult to produce a benign teratoma — really an abnormal misplaced identical twin. More likely, and probably much more so in an adult than in an embryo, a dispersed germ cell would go through gametogenesis within the soma and produce a malignant teratoma. The reason for this is the presence of gonadal hormones everywhere in an adult; but less likely to be present throughout an embryo. Embryogenesis would require depression of sexual generation genes. The asexual generation repressors would remain in force. As a result of gametogenesis the reverse would occur, the derepression of the genetic endowment of the asexual generation. If it is justified to describe a primary germ cell as a pivotal cell, especially the primitive apical cell, it might be represented as an internally compensated cell in terms of those genes that represent two antithetic generations. By contrast how would the secondary germ cells be described? The primitive germ cell appears at the end of cleavage according to Beard (fig. 1). In some forms the number of cleavage divisions is small — two or three. In others, there may be as many as eight, as in the frog. At the end of cleavage all derepressed genes of the asexual generation would have com-

196

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

pleted their function, at least for the time being, leaving a compensated primitive germ cell — let us assume a “firmly” compensated germ cell. The ensuing divisions of that apical primitive germ cell into primary germ cells might, in one sense, be analogous to cleavage. But in the primary germ cells it would be the genes of the sexual generation that would be candidates for derepression to make embryogenesis possible. Thus in general only primary germ cells could be forerunners of embryos. But a primary germ cell, “embryonic in destiny,” would normally have to be one in a blastocyst at a certain time. The secondary germ cells on the other hand would be, in a sense, compensated again and await the specific chemical influences of gametogenesis to derepress the asexual generation genes once more so that the asexual generation could be evoked should the gamete undergo cleavage. This brings up the difference between the primitive germ cell and the secondary germ cells before the latter undergo gametogenesis assuming both to be compensated. Here we may have to borrow from ecology. There is little doubt that the blastocystic environment — presumably surrounding the primitive germ cell, and also its progeny — of those few primary germ cells embryonic in destiny is very different from the future somatic environment of the primary and secondary germ cells. For one thing, the environment of the inner cell mass is the only one during the life-cycle when germ cells are normally in close contact with asexual generation or trophoblast cells. If it is true that in a fairly well differentiated neoplasm for example, the somatic cells in that neoplasm are stimulated to proliferate because of the proximity of cancer cells — assuming these to be trophoblast cells — we may understand the possible reason why germ cells in the inner cell mass are spurred, as it were, to be embryonic in destiny; but that per se they are not after they have migrated into the embryo. There is probably no comparison between the environ-

ment

of the inner cell mass

and the environment

of the

gonads, or, assuming that the primitive germ cell may be ina

sense comparable per se to the secondary germ cells, between

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

197

the primitive germ cell-blastocyst system and the secondary germ cell-gonad system. No matter what kind of cell, if all the genes are always there, the change or vicissitudes of the environment of the cell and the genes will determine which genes or combination of genes will operate. Although derepression of genes of the asexual generation occurs normally during gametogenesis, the possibility remains that it can occur at any time in somatic cells — since the genetic information is there — provided requirements are met even when such derepression is no longer a normal occurrence. However, there must be differences between, let us say, the repression dynamics in a germ cell, a gamete and a somatic

cell. Since a primary germ cell has to undergo derepression of the genes of the sexual generation, such as in twinning in armadillos, for example (55-57), the genetic information representing the asexual generation must be firmly repressed. It would be, therefore, a main function of gametogenesis to derepress the genes of the asexual generation so that it can be evoked easily during cleavage. The repression of genetic information representing the asexual generation in a somatic cell continues the process begun in the primary germ cell.

Repression may become progressively tighter as cellular differentiation progresses until derepression of genes necessary to bring about simple mitosis may become difficult or impossible. This could be another reason why only germ cells and not somatic cells can become gametes in the gonads. Also it would tend to explain why chemical carcinogenesis, oncogenesis by artificial influences or hormones, or protracted exposure to unphysiological environments would be necessary to derepress the genetic endowment of the asexual generation in the differentiated soma and why it is statistically unlikely to occur, except in chemical carcinogenesis. Moreover, in view of the orderly and controlled sequence of cellular differentiation we can assume that the progressive derepression of genetic information repressors is itself genetically determined just as it must be during gametogenesis. If for an adult somatic cell we postulate the possible derepression of asexual generation genes, it would be as a possible or small chance event out of other chance derepressions. Also a

198

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

gene-controlled derepression such as would occur in normal gametogenesis would not occur at this time. If, too, we assume an oncogenic virus, for example, to have -a predilection for repressors rather than for genes etc., it would tend to explain its status — oncogenic rather than cell-destroying. Then too, along with predilection for repressors an oncogenic virus might at the same time derepress, again by chance, other cell growth capacities, such as derepressing the melanocyte-producing mechanism and endow a tumor with the character of a melanoma. An adenocarcinoma or a sarcoma might be explained in a similar way. A rhabdomyosarcoma, on the other hand, might just as well originate from an aberrant germ cell as from a somatic cell whose genes for ‘“‘asexual generation” characters were derepressed. Leukemia might logically result in the environment of a similarly “derepressed”’ undifferentiated potential mesenchyme, and so on. A trophoblast, evoked from an aberrant germ cell might be, as part of a teratoma, associated with a cluster of embryonic tissues quite different from cells associated with a trophoblast evoked by derepression of the “asexual generation” genes of a differentiated, more nearly adult cell. This might explain the difference between the morphology of teratomas on the one hand and carcinomas and sarcomas on the other hand. In the case

of anaplastic tumors we might have to assume that little if anything else than the trophoblast undergoes the type of gene derepression which is here envisaged. It is conceivable that all overgrowths: hyperplasias, benign tumors, cysts, keloids, etc., are expressions of derepressions of “sexual generation” genes in somatic cells on the pathologic level. Bone calluses, temporary scarring, leucocytosis, might all be physiologically controlled gene derepressions. In cancer, derepression of the ‘“‘asexual generation” (trophoblast) genes in somatic cells could come into play and give a tumor its varietal character by derepressing certain genes in neighboring cells resulting in differentiation and also proliferation. But whatever gene derepressions occurred, the proliferating somatic tissue could not be cancerous unless there occured at the same time in somatic cells derepression of the cluster of genes producing asexual generation

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

199

characters with the capacity for destructive invasion, unlimited reproduction, and production of trophoblastic hormones, simulating those of the pituitary and the ovaries, as in pregnancy. Gene derepression may not, by itself, account in every way for the appearance of the asexual generation in the soma. The precise mechanism of derepression of asexual generation genes in somatic cells still would have to be clarified. The trophoblast, if not infected by virus and having its normal origin, as in pregnancy (and even in the unphysiological cases of tubal pregnancy), will proliferate and invade other tissues until checked by a resumption of physiological control. The organs of gestation are geared to this kind of performance. Would a virus-free trophoblast survive within the rest of the soma? Or would its survival require the presence of an oncogenic virus? sa | not, if everything else is equal. In chemical carcinogenesis the carcinogen is not reproduced and tends to be detoxified and eventually excreted. Furthermore, once the genome of the asexual generation characters is derepressed and a trophoblast is evoked its growth tendency would probably continue regardless how the repressor was derepressed (93). Finally, if continued virus infection

were required to produce other cancer cells, virus

carcinogenesis might be self-limiting since any specific gene derepression caused by virus can be a chance occurrence only. Hence a malignant tumor probably need not contain any oncogenic virus beyond the time and stage of the initial presumed effect on gene derepression. If this is true the search for oncogenic viruses in cancer growth would be fruitless, or at least inconclusive even if the malignant process were virusinduced at the beginning. Repeated tests for virus might yield widely different quantitative or even negative results. All this is quite different from phenomena attached to the expression of somatic mutation. Mutations are an affair of the abrupt modification of One or more genes during meiosis. And meiosis is an affair of germ cells, so far as we know. Meiosis has been often observed in the soma. This is perhaps another indication that the adult soma contains

200

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

aberrant germ cells. If a mutant is to be quasi normal and viable, a helter-skelter genetic disturbance of virus invasion would be the worst sort of mechanism to change the orderly framework of a species that reproduces and differentiates with precision. Most likely an oncogenic virus does not effect anything permanent in the genes; but there is little doubt that it removes or changes something in the cell. If it removes or changes too much, the cell dies. Prolonged artificial cell culture with its slow development of a respiration-restricting metabolism is in effect a special type of chemical carcinogenesis. The influence of glass or plastic is mediated probably through adsorption or preferential wetting of the vessel by the surface of cells with diminished respiration at the adsorbed areas. Metabolites could combine with gene repressors to inhibit or neutralize them. Chemical carcinogenesis could effect a more vigorous and more rapid derepression following chemical reaction with repressors. A more rapid development of malignancy could

occur. Viruses derive their sustenance in a nuclear environment by attacking its components and may do so without destroying the cell by preying on repressors to evoke potentialities out of their normal ontogenic order. Apparently oncogenic viruses do not usually attack the genetic apparatus itself, by creating lethal mutations or destroying the cell, as other infective viruses do. They may do so in special circumstances. The gametogenic hormones induce malignant teratomas by evoking gametogenesis of germ cellsinthe mannerin which the hormones function in the gonads. This may involve gene derepression. Hence all teratomas show important similarities regardless of their disorder or degree of development. Benign teratomas, juding from Ewing’s observations (7, pp. 1046-1047), are those which, like the normal embryo, have brought about destruction or degeneration of their trophoblast. It may be that there is seldom, if ever, a teratoma benign from the onset of its development. This means that every human being begins development as a potentially malignant teratoma. This is one area in cancer development in which tropho-

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

201

blast betrays its presence unmistakably. This is seen in primary extragenital chorionepitheliomas which turn imperceptibly into carcinoma and sarcoma (83-85). Since we are dealing in either case with one and the same tumor, now chorioma, now carcinoma or sarcoma, the gradation probably should not be attributed to derepression of asexual generation

genes in somatic cells because if a trophoblast tumor reveals a semblance of chorionic villi it is teratomatous and originates from an aberrant germ cell. Hence the carcinomatous or sarcomatous development may be a degree of protective somatic response that succeeds only in influencing the trophoblast’s typical morphology. This is not an unusual phenomenon (see Maximov, 86) nor is it unexpected if we can, in addition, postulate that the carcinomatous character represents a growth stimulus directed toward undifferentiated epithelial cells in the soma which normally replace spent parenchymal cells. Normal uterine nidations, pediogenesis, invertebrate phorozoon development or replacement, to use Beard’s terminology, Tenia echinococcus alveolaris, anidians or chorioallantoic monstrous growths in eggs, are all normal and abnormal invasive and destructive processes that involve trophoblast cells or their extraembryonic equivalents in dif-

ferent species. Fortunately, abnormal gene derepression would be no less fortuitous in vivo than in vitro —not dependable and therefore improbable. For this we can be thankful. In conclusion, a malignant tumor may represent primarily trophoblastic tissue, derived either from a germ cell, or from a somatic cell whose normally repressed asexual generation potentiality is accidentally derepressed. Furthermore, the varietal character of tumors, other than teratomas, may be due to a parallel, simultaneous, chance derepression of some other genes, controlling somatic characters as a possible de-

fensive reaction against an intramural parasitization. This results in the differentiation and hyperplasia of normally present more primitive somatic cells. Finally, to quote Oberling (87, p.9): “Some day, perhaps it will turn out to be one of the ironies of nature that

202

Trophoblast Theory of Cancer Revisited

cancer, responsible for so many solubly connected with life.”

deaths, should be so indis-

NOTE: The list of 98 references has been omitted from this printing in the interest of brevity. It may be found at the end of the original article in “Oncology” 31: 310-333 (1975)

CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 1500 East Duarte Road Duarte, California 91010 (213) 359-8111

Division of Clinical Neurology Benjamin L. Crue, M.D., Chairman

July 30, 1976 Betty Lee Morales Cancer Control Society 2043 North Berendo Los Angeles, California 90027 Dear Ms. Morales:

As a member of the Cancer Control Society, I have awaited the arrival of each issue of the Cancer Control Journal hoping to find a reference to the research report submitted to the National Cancer Institute on December 3, 1973 by the Southern Research Institute (SRI) of Birmingham, Alabama. Having found none to date, I would like to supply your readers with a synopsis of their conclusions and the results of my own analysis of their data. This SRI report, entitled “‘Analysis of Life Span Data from Regular Lewis Lung Experiments 34, 47, 54, and 63 on the Evaluation of NSC 900540 (amygdalin MF, or Laetrile) and 128056 (beta glucosidase) Against Subcutaneous Lewis Lung Tumor,” is based on research performed under a contract from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. SRI’s conclusion stated that Laetrile “‘... . either alone or in combination with (beta glucosidase) ... is inactive against established subcutaneous Lewis lung tumor.”’ This conclusion was based upon the percent increased life spansof mice, in which subcutaneous Lewis lung tumor had been implanted, treated with various doses of Laetrile and/or beta glucosidase, versus untreated mice harboring the same implants. The results of this study have been used by the usual “‘cancer establishment” agencies as evidence against Laetrile’s ef-

203

ficacy. Upon my request, Dr. Dean Burk (well-known to your readers for his pioneering work and courageous stand on Laetrile), the former head of Cytochemistry at NCI, sent me a copy of this report suggesting I perform an independent statistical analysis of the raw data it contained. Dr. Burk’s suggestion was based upon my experience in mathematical statistics. Enlisting the cooperation of the Biomathematics Department at City of Hope, the following results were obtained: (1) Immediately noted was the fact that SRI had “Jumped”’ all their results from the treated group, regardless of administered dosage. This means that if certain doses of Laetrile and beta glucosidase were effective against those transplanted tumors, such information would be completely buried in the results obtained using sub-minimal levels and incorrect combinations of these two substances. Thus, our first impression was that here was a textbook example of how to lie with statistics. (2) Inspection of SRI’s analytical methods showed that the statistical tests they employed were too gross and insensitive to detect reliably the efficacy of most of their treatments. In other words, the statistical tests they used are designed for larger numbers of cases than were used in their experiments. Using their methods, the fluctuation in the life span of just one animal in many of their experiments could swing a negative result of to positive, and vice-versa. (3) Using tests more suitable to small-number statistics, we found significantly positive results even when applied to SRI’s “lumped” treatment of their data. (4) Our analysis reveals that certain dosages of Laetrile and beta glucosidase give rise to consistent highly significant positive results, indicating that certain combinations of these substances result in greatly increased life spans. In addition, even using SRI’s insensitive tests, highly significant positive results were obtained at these dosages when the “treated” animal population data were analyzed as a function of dosage levels.

204

(5) In an attempt to duplicate SRI’s results, using their Own analytical methods, we found numerous mathematical “errors” in their report (e.g., 39 of 87 (44.8%) of SRI’s percentage increased life span figures were incorrect). Most shocking, from the standpoint of scientific ethics, is the fact that, without exception, every one of their errors was in the direction of lowering the efficacy of the treatment. It is critical to appreciate that there is essentially zero probability that such systematic misrepresentation is inadvertant. There is no doubt to give anyone the benefit of! Sincerely yours,

Bernard Kenton, Ph.D. Division of Clinical Neurology

205

iterate 7 Ls enares Be ) ‘tie a)2 al hatte aa eons pv(boxW SOIT REY visors ous baopuaries edge Orbits fatfe oros.

ted

yllsitnazas st

iy tact grslotats or “hee ne

iat ne Y tetyHevtanbarnous pie reg: -

Gta re Hesoe

ehol hsssue ss

maf sta t

iniyy wv,praeiairae Oh 8 ; >

vj

¢ inh »

cor

a 7

Midotl

hive

USE OF LAETRILE IN THE TREATMENT OF CANCER REPORT NO. 1 é

Prepared by:

Dr. Myron M. Issahary, M.D., M.Sc Senior Medical Consultant Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd.

Surgeon Consultant Tel Hashomer Hospital, Israel Former Chief of Medical Services Israeli Army

Dr. David Rubin, M.D., M.Sc. Surgeon, Beilinson Hospital, Israel Former Researcher (Cancer) Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem

September 1, 1976

INTRODUCTION After reviewing numerous articles, publications, books and various written reports concerning LAETRILE, we felt it ab-

solutely necessary to obtain as much first-hand unbiased knowledge as possible. Arrangements were made for us to proceed to Tijuana, Mexico, where we could inspect two clinics and one hospital where LAETRILE was being used in the treatment of cancer. We were then to proceed to the United States, where we were to meet a number of highly esteemed medical and sci-

entific personalites.

2

In this report we are summarizing our observations and findings about LAETRILE. The controversy surrounding the efficacy of LAETRILE in the treatment of cancer gave us cause for concern and frustra-

tion. It was difficult to properly evaluate LAETRILE without personal knowledge and observation. It was through the

207

208

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

good offices of Mr. A.W. Schwimmer that we were afforded the opportunity to make a personal first-hand observation. It allowed us approximately three weeks in Tijuana to inspect clinics and the hospital where LAETRILE had been in use for over ten years in the treatment of cancer. We also had about ten days in the United States for meetings with medical practitioners and well-known scientists. The following report is based on: (a) Our stay in Tijuana, visiting clinics (Clinica Contreras and Clinica Cydel), and one hospital. (b) Meetings and discussion with prominent scientists. (c) Visiting with a physician-practitioner, Dr. Weedell of Salem, Oregon, who had a vast amount of experience with the use of LAETRILE. (d) Participating in a ‘‘non-conventional’’ Medical Congress in Los Angeles, California (July 3-6, 1976), where LAETRILE treatment was discussed. A. Visit in Tijuana, Mexico The authors of this report spent several weeks in Tijuana, Mexico, gathering first-hand data by examining cancer patients being treated with LAETRILE, reviewing confirmed documentation, reviewing scannings, X-ray films, and discussing the rationale with the respective medical staffs. We had free and open access to patients’ files, laboratory reports and correspondence, and we wish to state that the cooperation from the Tijuana doctors and staff was commendable. B. Tijuana Facilities There are two separate and independent competitive treatment centers. One is headed by Dr. E. Contreras (Clinica Contreras), who has used LAETRILE for more than ten years. This clinic is owned and operated by the Contreras family. The other clinic (Clinica Cydel) is headed by Dr. M. Soto, an oncologist, who had previously used LAETRILE in a Mexican Government Hospital in Mexico City, and was

instrumental

in securing official Mexican

Government

ap-

Appendix

209

proval for the use of LAETRILE in Mexico. Dr. Soto is also a foreign investigator for the National Cancer Institute (N.C.I.) in Washington, D.C. The Clinica Cydel is owned and operated by the Del-Rio Brothers as a private enterprise. Both clinics are staffed by a team of physicians with specialties in medical, surgical, radiology, etc. The work is primarily done in the two out-patient clinics. Dr. Contreras also maintains a hospital with forty beds for those patients requiring hospitalization. In addition to Laboratory and X-Ray Departments, there are two factories attached to each clinic which produce LAETRILE in ampoules and tablets. These factories are owned by the two groups. The Del-Rio group (Clinica Cydel) is expanding, and its equipment is highly sophisticated (much of it having recently been donated by the Mexican Government). The Clinica Cydel has also been designed as the official Mexican Government Cancer Center for Baja, California, Mexico.

C. Procedures 1. Both clinics have their own standard procedures, but there appear to be only minor differences between them. 2. The patient is first interviewed by an assistant (Medical-Physician), who also reviews whatever written medical history the patients may have in their possession. Then a written history is prepared for review by the Clinic’s respective heads. 3. The cases are then reviewed and additional tests are ordered such as laboratory, x-ray, scanning, etc. 4. Approximately three days later, after completion of the tests, the patient is seen by the clinic heads and the diagnosis is either confirmed or reassessed. The patient is then provided with instructions (dosage, frequency, diet, exercise, etc.) and prescriptions. Some patients have been or are now hospitalized according to the individual cancer problem. The treatment with LAETRILE is begun by intravenous injections lasting approximately. 24 days, usually comprising three 8-day sessions. The total time elapsed is about 27 days, and the patient

210

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

is furnished with a prescription for intravenous injections to be given at their home. Since LAETRILE is controversial and banned in the United States (90% of the patients are from the United States), these prescriptions given in Mexico

to be used in the United States, pose legal and other problems which we feel incompetent to deal with in this report.

D. Number of Patients We estimated that between the two clinics at least 120 cases are treated daily, which we estimate average out to at least 250 new patients treated weekly. The largest number of patients are being treated at the Contreras Clinic, which we believe is due to the fact the Contreras Clinic has been active for at least ten years, while the Clinica Cydel has been open for about one year. Dr. M. Soto treats about twenty patients daily, and Dr. Contreras up to one hundred (their statements). Most of the outpatients stay at motel-like accomodations attached to the clinics. The rest commute daily over the United States border for their treatments. E. Condition of Patients By far the majority of patients we examined were advanced cases and, by orthodox standards, considered incurable. Practically all the patients had a history of previous conventional treatment, i.e., surgery, radiation therapy, chemo-therapy, immunotherapy and hormone treatments. It was indeed rare to find virgin cases, that is untouched by any classical treatment. Practically all the patients had their diagnosis confirmed by biopsy-histological examination done in the States. The supplemental tests, such as bone scanning, urine, blood, etc., were done in Tijuana.

F. Modes of LAETRILE Treatment 1. Maximum dosage: intravenous 9-12 grams once daily in three 8-day series, to be continued at home at the same dosage, and/or 3-6 grams orally. 2. Moderate dosage: same as above but smaller dosages. Dr. Contreras’ LAETRILE treatment is supplemented with

Appendix

211

é

deshielding therapy, specific enzymes and vitamins (megadosages). He is not averse to surgery. He is a believer in Focal infection, therefore all patients have to undergo a dental examination. Dr. Soto, the oncologist, stresses in additon to LAETRILE, orthodox therapies. He is not a believer in supportive therapies such as enzymes. G. Clinica Contreras Dr. E. Contreras devoted much to us demonstrating films, and specifically discussing cases of diverse tumors and metastases. It was particularly noted that those differing malignancies had a statistically significant higher survival rate than could be expected from orthodox methods. The most interesting cases were three pateients with lung cancer (proven histologically). Two survived 7 years, and one is still living.

H. Clinica Cydel We were present when very highly sophisticated diagnostic and nuclear equipment was being installed. It was donated by the Mexican Government. A fairly large expansion program was in progress during our stay. I Observations and Impressions 1. All the cases we saw, except one (squamous cell car-

cinoma of the Internal Meatus) were advanced incurable cancer patients. Most of them had conventional therapy before arriving in Tijuana. 2. The most striking observable feature was relief of pain. 3. A dramatic decrease or even withdrawal for the need of pain killers and sleeping potions. 4. After a few days of treatment, there was appetite improvement, followed by weight gain. 5. An uplift of general mood and living interest. 6. “The quality of life” has definitely been improved by LAETRILE. This was observed by us as well as other compe-

212

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

tent observers (in literature) as well. 7. It appears that LAETRILE may prolong life. However, before this can be stated as a definitive opinion, we will require a more critical evaluation and experience with LAE-

TRILE. J. Visit to Dr. Weedell’s Clinic in Salem, Oregon Dr. Weedell directs an out-patient clinic. We found the clinic over-crowded with patients hooked up to LAETRILE intra-venous drips. These infusions are applied.for five hours, five days consecutively, and according to the specific case, for several weeks. He is a general practitioner and performs surgery as well. This 62-year-old dour and very gifted Scots-

man, suffers himself from a bladder cancer for the last eleven years. The diagnosis has been established cystoscopically and by biopsy. The histo-pathology revealed a malignant tumor. His self-treatment consists of LAETRILE with protolythic enzymes. He has a follow up bi-annually. We were impressed by Dr. Weedell’s claims to have statistics of 3,000 cancer cases treated by him with LAETRILE. According to his claims, there were 12% cures. In 40% of the cases, the malignancy came to a steady state (no masses enlargement and no metastatic activity for years); approximately 48% however died. Accordingly, LAETRILE was very successful in treatment of the following cancers: ovaries, lungs, big bowels, prostrate, leukaemias. He had no successes with pancreatic cancers. Among others he stressed five years’ survival in a case of seminoma, and other cases of breast cancer, which he treated by lumpectomy (without removal of the breast) added by 6 grams of LAETRILE daily. This was supplemented by enzyme therapy such as Bromaline and diet. He irrigates brain tumors after surgery with LAETRILE. K. Cancer Convention in Los Angeles We were given the opportunity to attend a Convention for cancer treatment with unorthodox methods, including LAETRILE. There were more than 1000 participants. There were laymen and doctors as well, and at the end of the meeting, there was a seminar for doctors only. We were greatly

Appendix

213

impressed by the physicians’ disappointment with the orthodox-classical methods of cancer treatment and their favorable attitude towards LAETRILE and other non-conventional treatments. Dr. Issahary noted a veterinarian’s report to the Convention about LAETRILE’s successful treatment of his prize winning dog who fell ill with leukaemia 12 years ago; the dog is still alive. L. Meetings and Discussions with Prominent Scientists and Personalities 1. Dr. Dean Burk formerly head of the Cytochemistry Department of the National Cancer Institute, also a founder of the National Cancer Institute (Washington, D.C.). Dr. Burk is convinced of LAETRILE’s efficacy in cancer treatment. In support of these statements, he quotes his experience “of following up many thousands of cases and their assertions.” Dr. Burk has a discriminating mind and his integrity vouches for his statements. 2. Dr. C. Gurchot, formerly assistant Professor of Pharmacology to Chauncey Leake, Dean of Pharmacology at U.C.L.A. Dr. Gurchot recently contributed an article that was published in “Oncology” in December 1975, consisting of a revised and updated treatise on the trophoblast theory in cancer. His sound judgment and clear exposition of the trophoblast theory endeared him to us. 3. Dr. E.T. Krebs, discoverer of the vitamin B-17 and foremost proponent of the use of LAETRILE for the treatment of cancer. Dr. Krebs’ exposition and explanations about LAETRILE’s action is basic to the whole treatment. It was very valuable to us to listen to his arguments, particularly at the Seminar for doctors at the Convention in Los Angeles (July 3-6, 1976). We noted a difference in the trophoblast explanation between Dr. Gurchot and Dr. Krebs as to its theoretical basis. 4. Prof. L. Pauling (Novel Prize Laureate) and his assistant, Mr. I. Stone, were strong proponents of ascorbic acid as an aid in the treatment of cancer and had no experience with LAETRILE to discuss with us.

214

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

M. Discussions and Observations Dr. Contreras had discussed with us his ten years’ experience with LAETRILE. During our personal contact and observation of Dr. Contreras, we were impressed with his devotion to the patients and his absolute integrity. We have no reason to doubt his written or spoken words. His clinical ex-

perience with LAETRILE can serve as a basis for duplication. In all our discussions with the medical staffs in Tijuana, no claim was ever made that LAETRILE is a cure for cancer. It was said that it might more properly be called a control for cancer. In the short time that we were allotted we observed and confirmed the following: . LAETRILE acts an an analgesic. . It gives the patient a sense of well-being. . The patient regains hope. . The vicious cycle is cut. . LAETRILE is an appetite enhancer. . The patient gains weight. = ANADNABRWN . It acts as a deodorant in decaying cancer masses (fetor).

During a visit of Dr. Issahary in 1975 to the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute in New York, he met with Dr. L. Old, Vice-President of the Institute. In his discussions, Dr. Old said the following: 1. LAETRILE is not toxic and can be given subcutaneously up to 5g. per k/w per day. 2. There is no contra-indication in giving LAETRILE in addition to orthodox therapy (surgery, chemotherapy, and hormonal). 3. It would be advantageous to investigate the mode of LAETRILE treatments in Tijuana. Moreover, Dr. Old stated he would appreciate being kept informed of our LAETRILE reports and activities. Our theoretical observations on the LAETRILE treat-

Appendix

215

ment as practiced in Tijuana concerns the dosage, which we do not consider rational-adequate. According to animal studies, it appears that the anti-cancer activity begins with dosages of 500 mg. per k/w. Therefore, LAETRILE not being toxic, it should be given in larger concentration so as to be more effective against the tumor masses as set forth by the Laws of Diffusion. Dr. Contreras asserted that he never has seen any unwanted side effects with intravenous LAETRILE treatments. So why not a maintenance regime? The mode of LAETRILE’s anti-cancer action may be controversial, but the same applied to the time honoured ASPIRIN, but nobody doubts the latter’s action. No doubt LAETRILE is pharmaceutically interesting and deserves further investigation. Aside from the details of its metabolism, there are important points to clarify: does it act as a whole molecule? Is it at first broken down by enzymes - - in the guts by bacteria, in the liver by lysonome? Does it cross the blood-brain-barrier? Has LAETRILE a local effect (as Dr. Weedell believes)? Is LAETRILE effective in

other diseases? N. Implementation of the Use of LAETRILE in Israel Our intention is to proceed as follows: 1. Publication of the trophoblast story in

“Harefuah” - - the Israeli Medical Journal. 2. Publication of LAETRILE treatment in the world. 3. Animal experiments with the idea of administering LAETRILE to animals before induction of the cancerous growth artificially, or to administer after induction. 4. Tagging the “‘C” of the Cyanate group in LAETRILE with radioactivity and tracing its course in the body, especially as to its crossing into the brain. 5. Use of LAETRILE while elevating body temperature. Studies have shown that LAETRILE anti-cancer activity increases significantly in using this method. 6. Cancer patients should be divided into two groups.

One to have orthodox treatment with LAETRILE,

216

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

the other group only orthodox treatment. The results should be compared periodically. 7.1t is our belief that after one year we can establish the correct mode for optimal dosage combinations, so as to obtain benefit from LAETRILE. 8.Implementation of the above should be discussed and coordinated with the competent authorities. 9. The feasibility of cooperation with Dr. C. Tal, Hadassah Hospital, Jerusalem, shall be re-examined. Her T-Globulin-test should be performed with the cooperation of the Israel Aircraft Industries’ employees through their blood donor program.

SUMMARY 1. LAETRILE has promise in it. 2. It should be used in all stages of cancer. 3. It deserves a thorough investigation in vivo and in vitro. 4. The budgetary funding to initiate the above programs should be clarified.

cc:

Ministry of Health, Jerusalem Israel Dr. L. Old, V-P, Sloan-Kettering Cancer New York McNaughton Foundation, Montreal, Canada

Institute,

Appendix

217

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A.R.L. McNaughton Mr. McNaughton is head of the McNaughton Foundation, a non-profit foundation which sponsors independent research. He is a Consultant to the two clinics and respective factories in Tijuana, and has been sponsoring research in LAETRILE for over 20 years. As such, he is familiar with the diverse personalities involved in the LAETRILE programs. To him we are indebted for his time, help and advice that aided immeasurably our understanding of the various problems that confront a LAETRILE evaluation. In addition, the McNaughton Foundation is an advocate of the Metabolic-holistic approach in the prevention of cancer. Irwin S. Schwartz We wish to acknowledge the help of Mr. Schwartz of Tel Aviv, our friend and associate of Mr. McNaughton, who for the past twenty years aided Mr. McNaughton in sponsoring LAETRILE. Mr. Schwartz furnished us in Tel Aviv with a constant flow of documents, books, literature, material, etc. He also accompanied us to Mexico, where he was indeed helpful in establishing an excellent working rapport with the doctors and staff working on the LAETRILE project.

|

ov

stiecia # ae

aolevlas AIA

Shite)

nnsidae

i

sean 2b neiyebnoot wolitguaZas a aa oe lbh?

coimavag aa agec

| re ryt in oh Stiges ofan! Srpwitoe BH: — a

ee

of -

r,

Sati eAiat 3 A tial a dehoran earabi ainsnvagh lo want 7 hsgting usw ar Soil ORR, 12 belvantno As ott (iw }woqagi snbudw esilsoxs ov petistatldetes 1%’ Jogtong SLAPS och 23 gelhow Yate ia ei0}

c=

oi Ho Mingty

Se. :

ea

norgae 238

is] aotAnwie Seim oe

J)

F =

ee Le 3 “al

Earl,

WP,

jovmien

trae!

al | i a

SornKaliing Syncee

Ne@ Fok Sicherar

USE OF LAETRILE IN THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF CANCER REPORT NO. 2 Prepared by:

Dr. David Rubin, M.D., M.Sc. Surgeon, Beilinson Hospital and Former Cancer Researcher, Hadassah Hospital Jerusalem, Israel

October 25, 1976

In the months of June and July of 1976 the writer, in the company of Dr. Myron M. Issahary, Senior Medical Consultant to Israel Aircraft Industries, visited Mexico and the United States, at the direction of Mr. A.W. Schwimmer of Israel Aircraft Industries of the Israeli Ministry of Defense, to carry out a preliminary investigation of the use in these countries of LAETRILE in the prevention and treatment of cancer. On 1 September 1976 we submitted to both Mr. A.W. Schwimmer of Israel Aircraft Industries and the Ministry of Health of Israel a report: on our findings together with our recommendations for a program of research and clinical study of LAETRILE in Israel. Summary of Our Observations and Impressions as Contained in Our Report of 1 September 1976 1. With few exceptions, all of the cases we saw were advanced incurable cancer patients. Most of them had had conventional therapy before being treated with LAETRILE. 2. The most striking observable feature was relief of pain accompanied by a decrease or even cessation of the need for pain killers and sleeping potions. It is interesting to note that in the majority of cases the patients came off long-term use

Z19

220

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

of narcotics without the usual withdrawal symptoms. 3. After a few days of treatment with LAETRILE there was an improvement in appetite followed, in many cases, by a gain in weight. 4. A frequent striking feature in cancer wards is the odor of decaying cancer masses. We observed that this fetor is generally absent in the cases of patients under LAETRILE ther-

apy. 5. LAETRILE is non-toxic to normal somatic cells and may be given by injection in doses up to 5 grams per kilogram of patient weight per day. 6. There is no contra-indication to giving LAETRILE in addition to orthodox therapies such as surgery, toxic chemotherapy and hormones. 7. In general, it is claimed that the LAETRILE patients experience a sense of well-being and the quality of their life improves with the important result that the patients regain hope that their disease will be brought under control with consequent extension of their lives without undue discomfort and without the need for mind clouding narcotics as previously required. In very many cases it appears from our preliminary observations that this is indeed what takes place. In short, it is our conclusion that:

(a) Contrary to many allegations in both the scientific and lay literature, LAETRILE is not quackery. (b) LAETRILE is Paeionic even in very large injected doses. (c) LAETRILE has a definitive palliative effect. We cannot, at this stage of our investigations, say that it inhibits tumors but the evidence we have suggests that it does. We must do controlled studies to rule out the possibility that prior therapies had some effect on the tumors that stopped growing. However, we doubt that the regressions we observed were due to the “delayed effects” of other therapies because, in our experience, such delayed

Appendix

221

effects rarely, if ever, occur. Implementation of the Use of LAETRILE in Israel In our report of 1 September 76 we recommended the following: 1. Publication of the trophoblast theory of cancer in “Harefuah” - - the Israeli Medical Journal. This could perhaps best be accomplished by a republication of the presentation made by Dr. Charles Gurchot of The McNaughton Foundation which appeared in the December 75 issue of ONCOLOGY if such can be arranged. 2. Animal experimentation with the idea of administering LAETRILE to animals before induction of the cancerous growth artificially, or to administer after induction. 3. Tagging the “C” of the Cyanate group in LAETRILE with radioactivity and tracing its course in the body, especially as to its crossing into the brain. 4. Use of LAETRILE while elevating body temperature. Studies have shown that LAETRILE anti-cancer activity increases significantly by the use of this method. 5. Cancer patients to be divided into two groups. One to have orthodox treatment with LAETRILE, the other group only orthodox treatment. It is our belief that after one year we .can establish the correct mode for optimal dosage combinations, so as to obtain the maximum benefit from LAETRILE.

To summarize ities in Israel:

our 1 September 76 report to the author-

(a) LAETRILE has promise in it. (b) LAETRILE should be used in all stages of cancer. (c) LAETRILE deserves a thorough investigation in vivo and in vitro.

Plans for the Future Since our 1 September 76 report was presented we have held extensive discussions with appropriate authorities in

222

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Israel and with both CLINICA CYDEL in Mexico and the McNaughton Foundation. The writer has been assigned the primary responsibility for the development of LAETRILE in Israel and has now completed his third visit to CLINICA CYDEL and to The McNaughton Foundation. Specific plans are now being.made for a clinical study of LAETRILE in the treatment of cancers of the breast in patients with advanced malignancies in Jerusalem together with a number of biological research programs which will be detailed at a later date. The proposed clinical breast cancer studies with LAETRILE will involve three separate groups of patients: two groups will be required for the double blind studies and one group will be an open study encompassing not only LAETRILE but also all those components presently under study

at CLINICA CYDEL and the other LAETRILE clinics which make what is called “The Holistic Approach to the Metabolic Therapy of Cancer.” In this approach LAETRILE is not regarded as a “magic bullet” but rather as the central factor in a therapeutic procedure which includes other components such as proper nutrition, the use of enzymes, vitamins and minerals in the correct physiological balance, mega-doses of the ascorbates (Vitamin C), enhancement of the immune system, adequate rest and exercise, and, most importantly, consideration of the mind-body relationship of each individual patient. Our clinical and other studies with LAETRILE in Israeli will be carried out in close cooperation with Dr. Mario Soto, Medical Director, and his staff at CLINICA CYDEL in Tijuana, Mexico as well as with personnel of The McNaughton Foundation with the intent of producing for joint publication in the scientific literature a series of articles with respect to our findings. We are indeed fortunate to have the cooperation of Dr. Mario Soto, an oncologist of vast and varied experience with an imaginative and innovative approach to the therapy of cancer. We are also fortunate to have access to the personnel and information of the McNaughton Foundation who have

been intimately involved in the development of LAETRILE

Appendix

223

for more than twenty years. I wish to thank Mr. George

Del Rio and the Del Rio brothers for their sincere and dedicated cooperation on my various visits as well as for making available supplies of AMYGDALINA (LAETRILE) for our work in Israel. And, finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Steve Schwartz whose energy and resourcefulness continue to be such a tower of strength behind the development of LAETRILE in Israel. In future reports we will detail the protocols for our forthcoming work with LAETRILE in Israel as well as our developing plans for a massive controlled study of the use of LAETRILE in the prevention of cancer in the normal population.

Dr. David Rubin, M.D., M.Sc.

hci i a”,

7

dapat wo ay Tae

= act us

Tt,

d

eerie ri} enue f a

0 B

Wm

agilas ae“ a

as wis

aae

ipa

2

wy

a a

a

- aM :

" a

aratie,

—

ns

)

ai ots Milw.

youes fe ee Wil ip ee tieos g io 3] ce +8

i un

\

santa Bas iaNben + Mie dg cali

sip eine # | oY tt

i.BAN,

nn

Spel g : aa

a

we, ofMi nid yy pus f ssaliioak

AEE

cictcal 50 «

Yetes

t , P|

Sat

My Caitg,

A. Ag (yay

2

“LS

SG Td

naga

- oa

an

ee

We

|

wave

ar 4

>

armas :

atelcyy are Sy uation

aa &

i£ BoyeEs aS i?

|

TiS

ssP

a

appresh" 20 Tae theanpya

i

SG

mara ie,Mast _

i

ry

> =

2

4

Ta. .

nit re or" Inger

i

;

—

Chur.

os

=a

ChEaves

ps

;a

c

=

e Ae =

r7d-OS

cn

|

7

.

CC,

whe «

:

,

-

Sven 4

cts

ra

iat

beesne

it

bas geth2a

ony Bown what Da

by te dy Uy

snaps

@

eve

ee #

BURYING CAESAR: AN ANALYSIS OF THE LAETRILE PROBLEM 4

by Mark McCarty University of California School of Medicine San Diego By now you have probably heard about Laetrile (also called amygdalin), the alleged anti-cancer drug which has attracted thousands of cancer patients to Mexico, but which has been denounced as a hoax by the U.S. Cancer officials in the strongest possible terms. Here are a few direct quotes from these officials:* Dr. Alexander M. Schmidt, Commissioner of the FDA, March 25, 1974: ‘Every study to date has not found any evidence of efficacy of Laetrile, and, if there was one shred of evidence from animal or cell systems, I would issue an IND.” Mr. Robert C. Wetherall, Acting Director, Office of Legislative Services, FDA: ‘‘No evidence of anti-tumor activity has been found in any of the tests with Laetrile.”’ Dr. Frank Rauscher, Director, National Cancer Institute: “I would certainly not turn off Laetrile if it had an iota of activity that we could pinpoint. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence at all.” Dr. Robert M. Hadsell, Office of Cancer Communications, NCI: ‘All testing by the NCI has found no evidence of activity against cancer by Laetrile.” Dr. Jessie L. Steinfield, former Surgeon General: “‘Laetrile has repeatedly been tested in animal tumor systems of the NCI. In no instance did Laetrile have activity in any animal tumor system. There is no basis for the use of Laetrile in man based on data derived from experiments in animals.” Dr. Charles Mortell, Mayo Clinic: ‘“‘Extensive animal tumor studies conducted independently at two outstanding cancer research centers, New York Memorial Sloan-Kettering *From

the

Triton

Times,

University

of

California

Diego, November 24, 26, 1975 , Reprinted with permission.

Pus

at

San

226

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

and the Southern Research Institute, have shown this drug to be totally without evidence of anti-cancer activity.” Dr. Frederick B. Hodges, Director, California State Department of Public Health: ‘The action of Laetrile in living cancers has been studied in vitro, in animals, and in man, and in none of these studies has it shown any demonstrable anticancer effect.” It is instructive to look at some of the data which, we are told, will clearly demonstrate Laetrile’s lack of efficacy. For example, the second series of the SCIND Laboratories’ studies on Walker 256 carcinosarcoma of rats, with amygdalin in dosages of 500 mg./kg. injected intraperitoneally on days 1, 3 and 6 after tumor take:

Days Survival Time: Controls: 19, 19, 19, 19, 22, 24, 24, 24, 26, 26 Treated:. 27, 28, 28,:28, 30; 30, 30,3); 60, 60

20, 20, 22, 22, 22, 25, 25, 26, 26, 26, 29, 29, 29, 30, 30, 32; 32,32, 60,60;

Average survival for the controls was 23 days, and for the amygdalin treated group 39 days. The amygdalin group shows a 70% increase in survival time over controls. Note that the survival time of every amygdalin treated animal was longer than that of every control animal -- a result of incredibly high statistical significance. The data for the first series of SCIND study were more equivocal, since several animals in the amygdalin treated group died on or near the day of injection. For reasons that will be explained later, amygdalin is much more toxic orally than i.p. ori.v. If a normally non-toxic i.p. dose 1s accidentally injected into the intestinal lumen, death may occur quickly. The acute deaths seen in the first series of SCIND were evidently due to this technical flaw. If the acute deaths are eliminated from the study, an average survival prolongation of 58% over control is found in the amygdalin treated rats, once again with extreme statistical

Appendix

227

significance. Dr. Carl Baker, Director of the NCI; wrote in a letter to Congressman Edward Edwards that, “The data provided by the McNaughton Foundation certainly indicates some activity in animal tumor systems.” The SCIND study was a part of the Investigational New Drug (IND) application filed by the McNaughton Foundation in 1970; that is, the McNaughton Foundation was requesting permission to use amygdalin in human clinical studies to evaluate its possible efficacy in the treatment of cancer. The FDA denied the application under circumstances which could euphemistically be called unusual. On April 6, 1970, the McNaughton Foundation sent the FDA its IND request - - a massive document running to hundreds of pages of data, which included the animal toxicity and efficacy studies necessary for the granting of a Phase One clearance. On April 27th the McNaughton Foundation received a letter from the FDA dated April 20, granting permission to proceed with clinical trials. (In congressional hearings, FDA officials later denied that this letter granted permission for clinical trials; they claimed that it was sent only to acknowledge receipt of the McNaughton application. But Dr. Dean Burk quotes the letter as follows: ‘‘As sponsor of the clinical study proposed in this exemption, you are now free to obtain supplies of the investigational drug and to initiate clinical studies.”) Then the McNaughton Foundation received on May 6 an FDA letter dated April 28 claiming that certain ‘“‘deficiencies” had been discovered in the application, and that the McNaughton Foundation had ten days from Gate of receipt to send extra data to remedy these deficiencies. The McNaughton Foundation required fifty pages of documentation to meet the FDA’s demand; nevertheless, by May 15 these data were in the mail. According to Dr. Dean Burk, a former high official of the FDA told him that in over thirty years at the FDA he had never seen such a short deadline period placed on such an extensive request for information. But the best is yet to come. On May 12, McNaughton received a telegram from the FDA informing him that due to

228

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

his failure to comply with the demand for new information within the stated period, his request for an IND had been denied. McNaughton, since he had received the ten day ultimatum on May 5, went ahead and mailed the requested data by May 15, and then appealed the matter. The FDA refused to listen; the IND denial stood. . It cannot be doubted that this matter bespeaks grave corruption on the FDA’s part, and that top officials at the FDA had no serious intention of allowing amygdalin the chance for a clinical trial that the efforts of the McNaughton Foundation had earned for it. (It must be emphasized that the “McNaughton Foundation had not been requesting permission to sell amygdalin as an anti-cancer agent, but rather only to use it in carefully designed clinical trials.) Furthermore, it is instructive to consider the “deficiencies” which made the McNaughton data unacceptable. The Ad Hoc Committee of Oncology Consultants, which issued a report in 1972 sustaining the denial of the IND, commented, “‘We are particularly cognizant of the lack of adequate evidence of in vivo antineo-plastic characteristics. The SCIND Laboratory data in the initial submission of IND 6734, April 6, 1970, concerning two experiments with a Walker 256 system are considered unacceptable because of inadequate documentation of status of animals, percentage of tumor take, rate of growth, and accounting for acute deaths and the other substantial lack is a statistical analysis [sic]. SCIND Laboratory, in a letter dated October 18, 1968, filed with October 31, 1970, amendment, states: ‘Laetrile, when administered without Beta glucosidase has little or no effect upon transplanted rodent tumor systems tested’ ’’ (emphasis theirs). I can see nothing in the allegedly deficient information that would have altered the fact that amygdalin produced a biologically and statistically very significant prolongation of life in Walker 256 carcinosarcoma bearing rats. The fact is that all animals in both treated and control groups had confirmed tumor take, which makes percentage of tumor take rather irrevelant. Rate of tumor growth is of interest, but suvival time is an equally valid measure of chemotherapeutic ef-

Appendix

229

ficacy. Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, who began animal trials with amygdalin at or near the time of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report, understood the cause of acute animal death; it is not clear why the committee did not. While the original McNaughton IND obviously should have contained a statistical analysis of its data, it is a matter of only a few minutes work to determine that the McNaughton data are indeed statistically highly significant (including the first set, if the acute deaths are deleted, as they obviously should be). The quotation from the 1968 letter from SCIND Laboratories was taken out of context, and was evidently written before the Walker 256 experiments which show clear efficacy without betaglucosidase. Furthermore, it is evident that the Ad Hoc Committee was considering only the material submitted in the April 6, 1970 submission and ignoring the back-up material mailed on April 15, which quite probably addressed itself to the ‘‘deficiencies” mentioned above. Nor did the committee even bother to consider the evidently corrupt manner in which the FDA arbitrarily set a ridiculous ten day deadline and then failed to abide even by this. The Ad Hoc Committee also criticized the starting dosages of Laetrile which the McNaughton Foundation planned to use, despite the fact that higher dosages had already been used by clinicians throughout the world without any apparent toxic effect. Any disagreements about the protocol of projected clinical studies could have been worked out by mutual discussion between the FDA and McNaughton Foundation. Nontoxicity and animal efficacy had been demonstrated by the McNaughton IND request; clinical trials therefore should have been initiated. Nevertheless, the Commission Report concluded: 1. There is presently no acceptable evidence of therapeutic effect of amygdalin MF. 2. There is no justification at present for clinical trials in IND 6734. 3. Although the question of clinical protocols is moot, we have discussed the necessary qualification of a protocol with respect to amygdalin MF.

230

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Lest we be tempted to stray from the path of conventional. wisdom and entrap ourselves in a sordid mire of quackish heresy, it would seem advisable to look at the studies which the NIH itself commissioned, and which, it is claimed, clearly demonstrate Laetrile’s utter worthlessness. Animal studies at Southern*Research Institute were initiated largely at the behest of Benno Schmidt, the investment banker chosen by Nixon to chair the President’s Cancer Panel. Schmidt remarked, “‘Since I’ve been chairman of the President’s cancer panel, I’ve had literally hundreds of letters about Laetrile. Some people ask me whether it is any good. Others flatly say that, in any case, it alleviates pain. “When I answer these people and tell them that Laetrile has no effect, I would like to be able to do so with some conviction.” In one tumor system leukemia L1210, no efficacy was found. It is interesting that this particular tumor was chosen by SRI, inasmuch as the McNaughton Foundation had previously tried Laetrile in L1210 and found no effect. This was well known at SRI at the time that their studies were begun. The other tumor system chosen by SRI for testing Laetrile was Lewis lung tumor. This is an extremely chemotherapeutically resistant tumor. According to J.G. Mayo of the SRI, “The Lewis lung tumor is relatively insensitive to all the antimetabolites and most of the alkylating agents tested in our laboratories”; Cytoxan and nitroureas are exceptions. Four separate studies were done, in each of which amygdalin was administered in a range of dosages. To analyze the results, SRI statisticians summed the post-treatment life spans of all mice irrespective of amygdalin dose and found no significant increase in life span over controls. However, if one looks more closely at the data, one finds that in 3 out of 4 of the studies, a statistically significant (p is less than .05 according to statistician Edward Van Vleek) prolongation of life occurred in those groups of mice receiving the lower dosages tested, while at the higher dosages a clear diminution of survival time is apparent. Remarkably, the fourth study showed precisely the opposite pattern: an increase in life span as the dosage was increased. The chance of obtaining such a pattern of results

Appendix

231

with a truly neutral agent are staggeringly small - - about one in 100 million. It seems very likely indeed that Laetrile was having both a therapeutic and a toxic effect in the range of dosages surveyed, and that either the first three studies or the fourth was (were) technically flawed. The intelligent response to such data would be to conduct additional studies at both the high and the low dosage levels to decide the matter, paying careful attention to experimental technique. This was not done; SRI felt that it could already give Schmidt the report that he needed. (It is interesting that toxic effect were observed in this study, since the highest dose of Laetrile used, 400 mg./kg., is demonstrably nontoxic in normal mice and rats and any number of tumor systems, as long as it is injected intraperitoneally or intravenously. ‘It is not unreasonable to speculate that acute deaths due to intestinal injection may have been included in the data. Death from such an accident would of course be more likely at higher dosage levels. Let’s say that a two-week study was held in which some rats received small amounts of water, while others had a liter or so pumped into them so that they immediately died from GI rupture; while the controls were given no water at all and died from dehydration after a week; then by summing the data across dosage levels it could be readily proved that life was not prolonged by water. Dr. Dean Burk, then head of the Cytochemistry Section of the ACS, was the most vocal and persistent critic of SRI’s conclusions. In a letter to Congressman Pete Fountain, Burk wrote, “Even a schoolboy fishing in a lake for the first time, and drawing out a fish on the first cast, but none on the second cast, would scarcely conclude therefrom that there were no fish (or no more fish) in the lake. He would almost certainly make more casts. And even if he caught no more fish, he would almost certainly move to some other part of the lake, or change his bait, etc. None of this equivalent procedure with respect to Laetrile efficacy appears to have been undertaken by the NCI.” Due to the fierce protests of Burk and others, the NIH eventually thought it wise to initiate further animal testing of

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for:Cancer

232

amygdalin at the prestigious Sloan-Kettering Institute. Testing began in 1972, and to this date, no official findings have been published. However, the results of the first study were leaked to the press in October 1973. This study was conducted by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, a respected senior member of Sloan-Kettering.

These tests were conducted with CD8F 1 mice, 85% of which develop spontaneous mammary cancer around the age of ten months. Using daily i.p. injections of amygdalin in doses of 1-2 g./kg., Sugiura found the following: of the 28 control animals, only 1 showed temporary cessation of tumor growth; of the 30 amygdalin treated animals, 8 showed temporary cessation of tumor growth. Of 23 carefully autopsied control animals, 18 showed gross or microscopic evidence of lung metastasis; only 4 of a comparable group of amygdalin treated animals bore lung metastasis (p. is less than .10). (Frequency of lung metastasis is an often used gauge for the ability of a chemotherapeutic agent to check the spread of cancer.) Sloan-Kettering acknowledged the leaked results as genuine, but claimed that research was still continuing, and refused to release any other data. After two years of official silence from Sloan-Kettering, reports began to appear that the initial positive results had not been confirmed by subsequent studies. The definitive answer of Sloan-Kettering appeared in a July 21, 1975 article in the New York Times by Jane E. Brody: “Actually, the first round of experiments done at Sloan-Kettering hinted that the drug, a derivative of apricot pits, might inhibit the spread of malignant tumors. “But repetition of the experiments by other investigators there showed no such effect, said Sloan-Kettering scientists who attribute the first spurious results to the vagaries of ex-

perimental variation and unfamiliarity with the animals used.” “Dr. Martin said that if amygdalin had any effect at all, it should prevent the development of the metastases (or spread of cancer) to the lungs, but it did not in his tests nor in the two most recent tests at Sloan-Kettering. Growth of the orig-

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

233

inal tumors was not inhibited, and the treated animals did

not look better or live longer.” “

Medical World News, in its August 11, 1975 edition, states: “In mid-73, the first series of experiments at SKI showed that mice treated with amygdalin (Laetrile’s pharmacological name) had a 20% rate of metastases as opposed to 80% for controls. “Meanwhile, back at the lab, those favorable results could never be reproduced; and the Sloan-Kettering scientists checked their findings with Dr. Martin in Queens, who also ran replication results. All proved negative. Analysis of the initial optimistic findings led the researchers to conclude that they were due to experimental error inherent in the novel technical requirements of working with the spontaneous tumor strain of mouse rather than with the customary transplantable strains.” “Dr. C. Chester Stock, vice president of SKI and director of the Institute’s Walker laboratories, says, ‘‘We have found amygdalin negative in all the animal systems we have tested.” So it appeared that Sugiura’s original work had been a lucky, unconfirmed fluke. For Sloan-Kettering hath said it. And Sloan-Kettering is an honorable institute. So are they all honorable institutes. A colleague of mine, who had heard from reliable sources that Sugiura had conducted further experiments with amygdalin at Sloan-Kettering, wrote Sugiura requesting the data from these subsequent studies. In a handwritten letter dated July 27, 1975, Sugiura replied that intra-institute confidentiality prevented him from releasing the results of these studies. But, significantly, he failed to retreat from his original findings, and in conclusion asserted: “I think amygdalin is not a cancer cure but a good palliative drug or compound. “J do not understand others who are finding different results on the inhibitory action of amygdalin upon lung metastases in mice.” On August 23, of this year, a second leak to the press revealed the results of Sugiura’s studies since the first leak. They were entirely consistent with his first study, and time and again show a statistically highly significant suppression of

234

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

the formation of lung metastases. In studies conducted in 1974, Sugiura found that 25 of 29 control CD8F 1 mice developed lung metastases, while only 17 of 58 mice treated with 1g./kg. daily of either German or Mexican-manufactured amygdalin developed metastases (p. is less than .01). ; In a long experiment begun on May 8, ‘73, Sugiura attempted to determine whether daily doses of amygdalin could prevent the development of the spontaneous cancers of CD8F 1 mice. He found that 21 out of 30 control mice developed such cancers, as compared with 12 of 25 of the treated animals (.01 is greater than p is greater than .001). Of the control animals autopsied, 14 of 18 had lung metastases, as compared with only 3 of 12 of the treated animals. In one experiment summarized on February 8 of this year involving Swiss Albino mice, another pure strain which develops spontaneous mammary cancer, Sugiura found that of 28 control mice, 8 showed temporary cessation of tumor growth, and 26 had lung metastases on autopsy, of which 13 had multiple metastases. Of 35 amygdalin treated mice, 18 showed temporary tumor growth cessation, only 9 had lung metastases on autopsy, and only 2 of these had multiple metastases.

Several other Sugiura studies released in the recent leak show results comparable to those above. Only an idiot. would sincerely attribute such a consistent string of statistically significant results to “‘the vagaries of experimental variation.”” Nor could Sugiura possibly be guilty of “unfamiliarity with the animals used,” inasmuch as he has devoted several decades of his life to tests of cancer chemotherapeutics in animal models. One must conclude that either amygdalin really does have efficacy in this system, or that Sugiura is consciously or unconsciously biasing his results (painting metastases on mice?). The latter possibility seems very unlikely; Sugiura’s work has been highly respected for decades, and he would have nothing to gain by backing amygdalin - - he is in his eighties, hardly a man on the make. He is certainly well aware that no merit is gained by producing unconfirmable results. What is perhaps more signi-

Appendix

235

ficant is that he has nothing to fose by bucking the system. One can only conclude that Sloan-Kettering spokesmen have “misspoken themselves,” or that their previous statements are now “inoperative.” Nor does this exhaust the list of animal tests positive to amygdalin. Two tests from European research centers show significant results: Experiments by Dr. Paul Reitnauer, chief biochemist of the Institute Manfred von Ardenne in Dresden (Archiv fuer Geschwulfstforschung, 42 (2), 135 (1973): 20 of 40 H strain mice were given bitter almonds in addition to their standard chow. (Bitter almonds contain high concentrations of amygdalin.) 15 days after the beginning of this regimen, all 40 mice were innoculated with 10-6 Ehrlich ascites cells. The 20 control mice lived an average of 21.9 days following this injection. The 20 mice who received continuing bitter almond supplementation lived an average of 25.8 days (p is less than .O5S by t-test). Dr. T. Metianu, director of research in charge of pharmacology-toxicology of the Pasteur Institute, Paris: Using mice injected with 5x10-8 cells of an adenocarcinoma adapted for mice, it was shown that a group of 10 mice treated subcutaneously two to three times per week for 20 to 25 days with 500 mg./kg. amygdalin, live an average of 58 days past time of tumor take, while a group of control mice averaged 21 days survival. A repeat of the same test showed 47 days survival for the amygdalin animals, 27 for controls - - results of indubitable significance. Less striking effects were obtained at higher dosages, and no effect was observed with amygdalin at 100 mg./kg. The logical and most frequently encountered response to a set of data that are so pointedly at odds with the repeated assertions of the NIH, ACS and other such bastions of conventional wisdom, is the following: what would motivate a large number of high cancer officials, the great majority of which are undoubtedly well-intentioned, to suppress and even lie about a drug that could possibly palliate the intense sufferings of thousands of cancer victims? On the basis of my

236

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

knowledge of amygdalin’s history in this country, I believe that the following factors have been of importance: 1. The suspicious nature of Laetrile’s introduction to clinical use. Clinical use of Laetrile began in the early 1950s before its efficacy had been evaluated by a major medical association or regulatory agency. In 1952, when the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association attempted to set up a controlled trial of Laetrile, Ernst Krebs, Jr., Laetrile’s developer and chief champion, agreed to make Laetrile available for the study only on the condition that a friend and Laetrile supporter be made director of the study. The CMA understandably had to refuse a demand that would so plainly compromise the study’s objectivity, and plans for a controlled study therefore had to be abandoned. When Krebs was asked for the results of his allegedly successful animal tests with Laetrile, Krebs claimed that he had lost them. Furthermore, Krebs claimed that the ‘‘Laetrile’” which he was Selling for clinical use (at up to $50 an injection) was a specially synthesized glucuronic acid derivative of the cheap, easily extractable apricot pit derivative amygdalin. Chemical analysis of Krebs’ ‘“‘Laetrile’”’ revealed that it was identical with amygdalin. 2. Clinical Report of the Cancer Commission of the CMA. Blocked from conducting a carefully designed clinical trial of Laetrile, the CMA did the next best thing, reviewing the records of 44 patients at several Southern California medical centers who were receiving Laetrile therapy. The commission found no hard, objective evidence for Laetrile induced tumor regression or life prolongation. One of the 44 patients did show complete regression, but it was thought that this might have been secondary to laparotomy, a procedure which does occasionally seem to induce remission in patients with peritoneal carcinoma. Other patients claimed as showing regression were often receiving concurrent orthodox therapy. Some of the patients lacked satisfactory histological proof of malignancy. Documentation of the progress of the neoplastic process was inadequate for most patients. Nevertheless, these finding cannot be taken asa trenchant

Appendix

237

criticism of present-day amygdalin therapy. As Dr. Dean Burk has pointed out, the total dosage of amygdalin which any single patient in this study received over the course of his or her therapy was less than the dosage that today would be administered in a single injection. Over the course of the past two decades, clinical experience has shown that amygdalin is so nontoxic that dosages up to 10-12 grams can be administered with no toxic effects, and, allegedly, with correspondingly greater therapeutic efficacy. A negative evaluation of Laetrile’s cancerostatic activity when administered in 60 mg. doses says nothing about Laetrile’s value when administered at dosages 200 times as large. Furthermore, even if amygdalin in the low dosages then used actually was having a significant cancerostatic effect in some patients, it is unlikely that objective, precise, irrefutable evidence for such effects could come out of a study slapped together in so haphazard a fashion. The doctors whose records were surveyed had not intended for them to be used as part of a clinical trial; therefore, it is not surprising that these records often did not include the optimal objective documentation of the process of the disease, that patients received therapies in addition to Laetrile, that histological confirmation of malignancy was lacking in some instances. It is quite possible that evidence for tumor regression due to Laetrile was invalidated by such considerations. Since the study followed the patients for only several months, with about half of the patients still alive at the time the study was completed, it is impossible to say whether or not any significant prolongation of life span would have resulted from continuing therapy. Moreover, certain aspects of the report show an unscientific bias against amygdalin. For example, microscopic autopsy slides from nine patients who died subsequent to amygdalin therapy (hardly an unbiased subset of those treated!) were sent to six pathologists for evaluation. The report states, “The unanimous opinion of these consultants was that in no instance could any recognizable effect of a chemotherapeutic agent to be observed in the histology of these various neo-

238

plasms.”

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

be)

This is an outright lie, as anyone who reads Appen-

dix Three of the Report by Cancer Advisory Council on Treatment of Cancer with Beta-Cyanogenic Glucosides can readily verify. Several reports did state that observed necrotic change was consistent with (though not indubitably due to) chemotherapeutic action. Even less justifiable was the contemptuously cavalier manner in which claims of subjective improvement were treated. The report states, “. . . . all of the physicians whose patients were reviewed spoke of increase in the sense of well-being and appetite, gain in weight and decrease in pain, as though these observations constituted evidence of definitive therapeutic effect .... The clinical observations of several members of the Cancer Commission . . . indicated that Laetrile may exert a temporary metabolic effect, probably on nitrogen metabolism.” The report did not clarify this vague statement, nor did it recommend the implementation of studies to determine the nature of this “temporary metabolic effect,” or to test whether Laetrile might indeed have greater-thanplacebo effect in alleviating the intense pain and cachexia of late stage cancer. 3. Negative results in animal systems. The positive studies cited earlier in this article were not intended as an exhaustive list of all animal work to date, but rather as refutations to the “‘misstatements” of various high cancer officials. There have been a number of studies which reportedly show amygdalin to have no apparent efficacy in several animal tumor systems - - several leukemias, C-1300 neuroblastoma, a mouse melanoma, Sarcoma 180, Ridgway osteogenic sarcoma - - as well as studies by Drs. Lloyd Old and Daniel Martin disputing Sugiura’s results with spontaneous mammary cancer of mice. The existence of such studies, though, is hardly a fatal blow to amygdalin as a chemotherapeutic. No reasonable advocate would claim that amygdalin would be equally active against all types of tumors, or in all patients with a given type of tumor. Each of the currently accepted standard cancerostatics shows a wide variation of efficacy dependent upon tumor type and the particular patient. It would be surprising if

Appendix

239

amygdalin were an exception to this commonplace. Furthermore, it is possible that various of these studies were technically flawed. Some of these studies used amygdalin dosages far lower than those currently used in humans. The danger of intra-testinal injection may not have been recognized in all cases. And some amygdalin proponents believe that some studies were conducted with a racemized (and hence less active) form of amygdalin produced by high temperature extraction (a claim which I cannot presently evaluate). It is of key importance that the first animal study yielding clear evidence of amygdalin’s efficacy (the McNaughton-SCIND study) was done in 1968. The dogma of amygdalin as a “quack” drug has been in full swing for fifteen years by this time, and thus had reached a stage where it was unlikely to be unseated by mere experimental evidence. 4. Negative results in “‘in vitro”” tumor cell systems. To the best of my knowledge, no test of amygdalin alone in isolated cancer cell cultures has shown any evidence of cytotoxic effect. A number of studies of this kind have been conducted. 5. The lack of confirmation for the Krebs mechanism. It is necessary to pause for a moment to discuss the chemical structure of amygdalin. Its formal designation is mandelonitrile-beta-gentiobioside. The disaccharide to the left is gentiobiose, consisting of two D-glucose molecules bound in beta (106) linkage. The remaining moiety bound to gentiobiose by a beta-O linkage is mandelonitrile. The glycosidic portion of the molecule can be hydrolytically cleaved by the enzyme beta-glucosidase, liberating the mandelonitrile portion. The mandelonitrile thus formed can either spontaneously, or by mediation of the enzyme beta-oxynitrilase, dissociate into benzaldehyde and cyanide. Amygdalin is just one of a family of compounds known as cyanogenetic glucosides (or, as more simply designated by Krebs, ‘‘nitrilosides”), which release cyanide upon cleavage

240

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

by glucosidases. Other members of this family include prunasin, linamarin, sambunigrin, lotusin and dhurrin. These are found in high concentrations in a variety of plants, such as cassava, bitter almonds, millet, lima beans, and the seeds of apricots, cherries and apples. Amygdalin itself was first isolated from bitter almonds, and its structure characterized by Wohler and Liebig in the 1830s. Now back to the story. Krebs, upon introduction of his Laetrile in the ‘50s, claimed that he had synthesized a betaglucuronide analog of amygdalin; that is, a nitriloside in which the gentiobiose of amygdalin was replaced by a glucuronic acid molecule. Krebs postulated that such a molecule would release cyanide when cleaved by the enzyme betaglucuronidase. It is well known that cancerous tissues often contain levels of beta-glucuronidase many-fold higher than its tissue of origin. Krebs therefore proposed that Laetrile was releasing cyanide selectively at the site of the cancer due to cleavage by beta-glucuronidase. This claim was disproved by the demonstration that Krebs’ Laetrile was in reality only amygdalin, which cannot be cleaved by beta-glucuronidase. Then Krebs made the convenient ad hoc proposal that amygdalin was first being converted to the glucuronide derivative in the liver (a process which would require two hydrolytic cleavages by liver beta-glucosidase and a subsequent conjugation of the resulting mandelonitrile with glucuronic acid by UDP glucuronyl transferase, not glucuronidase as Krebs suggested), from which the processed molecule would be carried to the site of the cancer and release its cyanide due to beta-glucurOnidase cleavage. To the best of my knowledge, no experimental evidence has been presented by Krebs or anyone else to substantiate this theory. Krebs’ latest version of amygdalin’s mechanism runs as follows: cancer cells have unusually high concentrations of beta-glucosidase, and little or no rhodanase (the enzyme which detoxifies cyanide, producing thiocyanate). Thus, cyanide would selectively attain high cytotoxic levels in cancer tissues. Several experimental studies at Sloan-Kettering and

Appendix

241

elsewhere have failed to conffrm this ad hoc generalization. While a few of the tissue slices studied at Sloan-Kettering did show this enzyme pattern, it is apparent this mechanism alone could not account for the range of therapeutic efficacy claimed by Laetrile proponents. As previously stated, in vitro experiments have repeatedly shown the inability of cancer cells to release cyanide from amygdalin within a reasonable incubation time. Hydrolysis has been observed after a 24-hour incubation, but this is a result of dubious physiological significance. It is important to emphasize that when Krebs states these theories, he states them as fact, not theory. His continued dogmatic, ad hoc, unconfirmable and even disprovable assertions as to the mechanism of amygdalin’s action have undoubtedly made it easier for scientists to believe that Krebs is a quack and that Laetrile is a hoax. The major alternative proposal for amygdalin’s action has been that cyanide is released by glycosidic cleavage at sites other than the cancer (such as the intestinal lumen, which contains by the highest reservoir of beta-glucosidase in the body, and possibly the liver; the high beta-glucosidase content of gut bacteria explains amygdalin’s greater oral toxicity) and that by this means a low serum cyanide level is produced which is non-toxic to the host but to which cancer tissue is selectively sensitive. For a considerable time, I did not lend much credence to this proposed mechanism, due to the influence of the article ““The Vitamin Fraud in Cancer Quackery” by David Greenberg, which appeared in the April ‘75 edition of California Medicine. Says Greenberg, “If cyanide was formed in the body, either through cleavage of amygdalin or by direct administration, would it be expected to have a specific cytotoxic effect on cancer tissue? The answer is no. Dating almost from the beginning of the century experiments have been made on the effects of injecting cyanide into cancer-bearing rodents or of maintaining such animals in an atmosphere containing a fixed concentration of HCN gas. Increases in survival time of the treated cancer-bearing animals were observed, but the animals also developed errythema,

242

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

edema and necrosis of the extremities. The general conclusion was that the effective doses were too close to the lethal dose to be of practical use. “Brown et al administered cyanide along with anesthetic to patients with uterine tumors directly to the tumor and observed no improvement.” This article dissuaded me from following out this possible mechanism. However, when I became convinced that the local release theory of Krebs would not hold water, and I was casting about for other possible explanations, it occurred to me that the experiments involving direct administration of cyanide might not be adequate models of the serum levels of cyanide likely to result from amygdalin administration. Cyanide is avidly detoxified by liver rhodonase, and thus an oral or i.v. bolus of cyanide sufficient to produce a significant average serum level over 12 to 24 hours would have to be very large, and in the period immediately following administration would produce serum cyanide levels quite probably host toxic. In contrast, amygdalin may work like a “‘timedrelease” cyanide, simulating a continuous i.v. infusion and maintaining a less variable concentration of cyanide more readily kept between the limits of cancerostatic efficacy and host toxicity. On the basis of this consideration, I decided to investigate the original research literature cited by Greenberg, in order to clarify the conditions of cyanide administration. I was more than a little surprised by what I found. An experimental study by Karczag appeared in 1928 (Archiv fur Experimentell Zellforschung, vol. 5, p.178). Karczag found that with continuously increasing doses of cyanide he could desensitize mice to the muscle cramping effects of KCN. Administration of higher, formerly intolerable dosages of KCN “. . . . over periods of weeks and months, influenced neither the life duration, the growth, the weight gain, gravidity, lactation, or any other biological process of normal animals. These experiments had the principal important result, that normal animals are biologically unaffected by potassium cyanide administered in this dosage and fashion” (my trans-

lation).

;

Appendix

243

Karczag then injected these animals with Ehrlich Ascites Mouse Carcinoma, continuing the administration of KCN, and comparing the resulting tumor development to that of control animals. He found that the average life span of the treated animals was significantly prolonged over controls, that tumor growth was often slowed, and that 18% of his treated animals were completely cured, all without manifestations of cyanide toxicity. Haagen, in experiments contemporaneous with Karczag’s (cited in the discussion following Karczag’s paper), found that cyanide administration beginning at the time of implantation of a mouse carcinoma reduced the frequency of tumor take to 75% from its normal value of 95-98%. He found, however, that cyanide was of little therapeutic value once the tumor had reached a certain size (a common finding with animal experiments and with clinical usage of amygdalin). He also found no effect on Jensen or Flexner-Jobling sarcomas of rats. Maxwell and Bischoff (J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 49:270) treated rats implanted with Sarcoma 180 by exposing them to an atmosphere containing HCN for 5-6 hours. In a series of four experiments, they varied the frequency and time of start of treatment intervals. After a set interval, it was found that in 3 of the 4 series, the average size of tumors in controls exceeded treated by between one and two standard deviations, and that in the remaining series, control size exceeded treated by greater than two standard deviations. One of two experiments conducted in a similar manner with Walker 256 showed control size exceeding treated by over two standard deviations; the other showed no significant growth inhibition in the treated animals. While the treated animals sometimes showed anoxia and prostration at the end of the treatment periods, the authors do not mention any mortality or chronic toxicity in treated animals. Indeed, the only article of those referenced by Greenburg which contained the alleged ‘“‘general conclusion” that “‘effective doses were too close to the lethal dose to be of practical use” was a paper by Perry (Am. J. Cancer 25:592, 1935), who, using the Jensen Sarcoma system of rats, also tested CN

244

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

administration by inhalation. Under the conditions of administration which she used, she did observe errythema, edema and necrosis in the limbs of the majority of her treated animals. Using daily 5-6 hour treatments, 5 of 32 treated animals died as a result of the continuing CN treatments. Seven of the 32 treated animals showed complete tumor regression and apparent cure. Those surviving therapy showed a very marked tumor growth retardation. In another experiment she tried continuous inhalation therapy beginning at time of tumor implantation, using a somewhat lesser atmospheric concentration of CN. By day 15 all but 9 of 32 treated animals had died as a result of the toxic effects of treatment, although all treated animals, alive and dead, showed marked tumor retardation. She then concludes her paper with the claim, “Therefore it seems that the range of the effective dose is limited and too close to the toxic dose to be practical.””> However, a careful reading of her paper shows that she had no rational basis whatsoever for this statement, inasmuch as she never made any attempt to determine a lower limit for anti-cancer efficacy: All she did was to try two different dosage schedules and found that they both involved significant toxicity and cancerostatic efficacy. Furthermore, her results apply only to Jensen Sarcoma, a tumor which Haagen found was refractory to dosages that could produce nontoxic efficacy against a mouse carcinoma. The most recent results are those of Brown, Wood and Smith (Am. J. of Obst. and Gynec., Nov. 1960, 907), who by using anesthesia to counter CN toxicity, found that several i.v. perfusions of .75-1.5 mg./kg. MaCN could produce life

prolongations of 15-85% in Erlich Ascites Mouse Carcinoma, of 70% in Sarcoma 180 rats, and in trials on 18 dogs with spontaneous cancers, produced several apparent cures and a number (according to the opinion of veterinarians) of significant life prolongations, all without apparent acute or chronic toxicity. Best results were obtained with those animals treated most frequently.

Indeed, the authors were so encour-

aged with their results that they began a limited clinical trial on seven terminal patients with gynecological cancer. That no apparent clinical effect was observed is not surprising in

Appendix

245

light of the fact that only a single 5-15 minute i.v. perfusion of .75-1 mg./kg. was given to each patient. Thus, from the available evidence it appears quite possible that amygdalin may work by producing serum cyanide, without a requirement for local release at the cancer site. The half-truths and deceptions contained in Greenberg’s article are all too typical of the statements of zealots on both sides of the Laetrile question. It is now appropriate to consider the question: why should cyanide produce selective toxicity to cancer cells at dosages which do not significantly impair host functioning? Further, why should this effect be most significant in early rather than late stage tumors? I believe that cyanide may produce this effect by selectively enhancing the acidification of cancer tissue, as well as by decreasing glucose availability to poorly vascularized tumor regions. It has frequently been reported in the research literature that cancer tissue has a depressed pH, in the neighborhood of. 7.0 as compared with 7.35-7.4 of most normal tissues. This appears to be due to the well documented fact that cancer cells tend to have relatively higher levels of key glycolytic enzymes such as hexokinase and phosphofructokinase, and depressed levels of gluconeogenic enzymes and of those enzymes involved in the shuttle of reducing equivalents from cytosol NADH to the mitochondrial respiratory chain - - cytosol glycerol -3-phosphate dehydrogenase and cytosol malate dehydrogenase. The more malignant the tumor, the more marked this pattern tends to be. The upshot of this is that pyruvate is produced from glucose at a higher rate, and a greater fraction of this pyruvate is used to reoxidize NADH with the resultant production of lactic acid. The latter effect occurs because the NADH reduced in the cytosol by glycolysis is less able to be reoxidized by the mitochondrial shunt route; reoxidation therefore occurs through lactate dehydrogenase. This enhanced production of lactic acid, well known as the aerobic glycolysis of cancer tissue discovered by Warburg, is responsible for the depression in tumor pH. Phosphofructokinase, one of the key regulatory enzymes of glycolysis, is subject to strong negative allosteric modula-

246

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

tion by ATP, especially in the mildly acidic conditions of tumor tissue. ADP is a competitive inhibitor of this negative modulation. Cyanide, by lessening the efficiency of mitochondrial respiration, will increase the ADP to ATP ratio and thus increase the activity of phosphofructokinase, stimulate glycolysis and thereby increase the rate of lactic acid production. The enhanced glycolysis would make up a large part of the ATP deficit caused by the cyanide, but only at the cost of depressed tumor pH. This effect will occur in normal tissue as well, but the resulting lactate production will be less intense due to the more normal enzyme patterns (lesser levels of glycolytic enzymes, competent NADH shunts) occurring in these tissues. The enhanced glucose utilization of tumor cells would decrease the availability of glucose to cancer cells at larger distances from capillaries, and thus show their rate of division and increase the fraction of tumor cells caught in the GO stage. This phenomenon of decreased glucose supply is the basis of the well known fact that late stage tumors (which have relatively poorer vascularization) show a lesser exponential growth rate than early stage tumors. Amygdalin might thus be seen as inducing a “premature aging” of tumors, without necessarily exerting a cytotoxic efiect: What role might tumor acidification play in slowing or even reversing the neoplastic process? It is known that the membranes of lysosomes (the cell’s suicide bags!) are rendered less stable under acidic conditions. However, in the absence of adequate levels of lysosomal labilizers such as vitamin A and dimethylsulfoxide, the pH necessary to produce significant lysosomal breakage is around 6 and below. My feeling is that (with the possible exception of tumors which very strikingly exhibit the typical tumor enzymatic patterns) levels of serum cyanide sufficient to produce such marked acidification in a tumor would also produce significant acidification of neural tissue (also deficient in the NADH shunt enzymes) and toxic energy deficits in tissues less capable of glycolysis. Assuming then that the degree of acidification is of the more modest extent likely to be produced by a non-toxic

Appendix

247

A schematic representation of the postulated “‘premature aging” effect of cyanide on tumors. The solid lines represent equilibrium

glucose concentrations as a function of distance

from capillary walls in (A) normal tissues and (B) malignant tumors. Note that glucose concentration falls off more quickly in tumor tissues, due to the higher glycolytic rate of cancer cells. The dotted lines represent equilibrium glucose concentrations in the presence of cyanide. In (A), note that while glucose levels are decreased from their normal values, the (negative) slope of concentration is everywhere greater, which implies that the rate of radial diffusion (and hence glucose consumption) is greater at all distances. Analogous reasoning applied to (B) shows that beyond the radius indicated by the arrow, the rate of glucose diffusion in cyanide treated tissue is less than normal, implying a depressed glucose consumption and lesser rate of cell’ multiplication iin these tumor regions.

248

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

cyanide (or amygdalin?) therapy, how might it have a cancerostatic effect? The cytotoxicity of T lymphocytes as well as other immunological scavengers (macrophages, PMN leukocytes) is largely mediated by lysosomal lytic enzymes. These enzymes, almost without exception, are intensely activated by acidic conditions. One would therefore expect tumor acidification to enhance the ability of the immune system to slow, stop or reverse tumor growth. The striking anti-cancer efficacy of lysosomal enzymes activated by acidic conditions has repeatedly been demonstrated by von Ardenne. Through acute hyperacidification of cancer tissue by means of a hyperglycemia of up to 400mg.% maintained for hours by continuous i.v. infusion of glucose, von Ardenne has demonstrated unequivocally a striking potentiation of single doses of radiation or cancerostatics which under normal conditions would produce only a small percentage tumor cell kill, but which when administered in conjunction with tumor acidification often produce striking tumor regression. Ardenne’s interpretation of this effect is that lysosomal enzymes released from the relatively small proportion of cancer cells killed by the “‘triggering’’ dose of radiation or cancerostatics, are strongly activated by the prevailing acidic conditions and thus attack the membranes of those cancer cells which survived the initial onslaught, thus producing further cell lysis. If hyperglycemic conditions are maintained for a sufficient period (up to 24 hours), the resulting “lysosomal cytolytic chain reaction” can produce near 100% tumor necrosis. (In in vitro experiments with Ehrlich Ascites cells, Ardenne has directly demonstrated this chain reaction phenomenon.) This method is of extraordinary importance since it maximizes cancer cell kill while minimizing the immunosuppression and other toxicity resulting from orthodox therapies. Ardenne has had very positive results in the great majority of animal systems that he has tried it in. The first human Clinical results from East Germany show that complete regressions can regularly be achieved in cervical cancer with a single dose of 500 rads, while orthodox procedures require

Appendix

249

5-7,000 rads for comparable results. Furthermore, there are no apparent toxic effects on the patients. (Ardenne’s brilliantly creative cancer work, which has spanned over ten years and resulted in well over a hundred publications, is still very little known in this century, largely because it does not participate in the mainstream research efforts of virology and molecular biology, and is filled with differential equations. For those who can read German, the best recent exposition from von Ardenne himself can be found in Radiobiologie Radiotherapie 16:99 (1975)). By a digression into the “lysosomal cytolytic chain reaction” I do not mean to imply that a similar intense condition of rampant cellular necrosis would occur upon administration of CN or amygdalin, primarily because the extent of acidification would probably be less than that achieved by Ardenne’s methods, and the “‘triggering attack” (as represented by an immunological attack) would not be as quick or intense. My purpose was rather to show that acidic activation of lysosomal enzymes can be a very significant effect, and thus that CN stimulated acidification might reasonably be expected to significantly potentiate immunological surveillance. Such a mechanism would be thoroughly consistent with the finding that CN (or amygdalin) is most effective against small tumors or metastases. It would also explain the fact that cancer cells do not seem to be selectively sensitive to CN in vitro, yet do seem to show some selective in vivo sensitivity. A hint that acidification may have immunostimulant effects beyond lysosomal enzyme activation can be found in recent research of von Ardenne involving testing of the newly synthesized immunostimulant drug BA 1. (Arzneimittel Forschungen, 25:1369) Ardenne found that while BA 1 alone could produce a 40 percent cure rate for DS carcinoma in Wistar rats, a 250 minute period of hyperglycemia (induced by continuous glucose infusion) overlapping the time of BA 1 administration could raise the cure rate to 80 percent. Ardenne has previously shown that hyperglycemia depresses the pH of this particular tumor system to around 6.0. This brief period of acidification seems to be enhancing either the strength or the specificity of the BA 1 immunostimulation in

250

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

a manner which remains mysterious, and may be of importance to the question of amygdalin’s efficacy. Some mutant cells may escape immune surveillance and give rise to tumors due to various blocking mechanisms - - for example, blocking antibodies or the mimicking of trophoblast by means of cell surface HCG (for an explanation of this latter point, see below). It is tempting to speculate that the therapeutic acidification of cancer might in some cases cause a temporary abrogation of these protective mechanisms (for example, by decreasing the affinity of an important clone of blocking antibodies, or by decreasing HCG suppression of T cell stimulation). Such ideas are highly speculative but perhaps worthy of experimental test. If acidification is the key to amygdalin’s action, one would expect other procedures which induce chronic tumor hyperacidity to have anti-cancer effects. There is an extensive literature to the effect that hyperglycemia produces selective cancer tissue acidification; this has been shown in both animal and human tumor systems. ,Ardenne’s exploitation of this principle has already been explained. Ciaccio et al. found that in rats previously rendered diabetic and thus hyperglycemic through i.v. streptozotocin destruction of pancreatic beta cells, the growth of implanted Walker 256 tumors was very significantly inhibited as compared to controls (14 days after transplantation, the streptozotocin treated rats had tumor masses only 48 percent that of controls; with a slow growing variety of Walker 256, treated animals showed only 27 percent of the tumor mass of controls at 19 days) - - and the tumors of treated animals showed extensive necrosis. Other studies involving alloxan as the diabetogenic agent show a reduction in the incidence of chemically induced hepatoma, and inhibition of the growth of Novikoff ascites tumor, Ehrlich Ascites carcinoma, and rat mammary carcinoma. A key question which must be asked is: are these effects due to lack of insulin stimulation of the tumor tissue, or rather to the hyperglycemia resulting from insulin lack? In the case of DBA induced rat mammary carcinoma it is known that insulin stimulates its in vitro growth; therefore

lack of direct insulin stimulation of the tumor may explain

Appendix

251

the effect in alloxan treated animals. Criss and Morris found, though, that Novikoff hepatoma is insensitive to insulin stimulation (no stimulation of pyrovate kinase or suppression of adenylate kinase); nevertheless, it grows much more slowly in alloxanized animals, and tumor take is only 50 percent as compared with 90 percent in controls. Some effect secondary to insulin lack, such as hyperglycemia, would seem responsible for this finding. The best, most direct evidence for hyperglycemic inhibition of tumor growth comes from the work of Tagi Zade with Sarcoma Mi, which showed that continuous glucose infusion could impair tumor growth and enhance survival time. Several experiments could be conducted to check the mechanisms of action proposed in this paper. Measure of intratumoral pH before and during successful amygdalin therapy, tests of amygdalin in tumor bearing animals whose T system has been suppressed by anti-thea antibodies, tests of amygdalin’s efficacy in gnotobiotic animals incapable of hydrolysing amygdalin in their intestinal lumen, are a few examples of such experiments. Until such time as confirmatory experiments are completed, these mechanisms must be regarded as speculations whose validity is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not amygdalin is of value in cancer therapy. The possibility must not be ruled out that cancer cell acidification may have effects other than immunological potentiation, that cyanide may have significant effects other than acidification and glucose deprivation (in addition to cytochrome oxidase, cyanide also inhibits catalase, gluathoine reductase and other enzymes), that nitriloside metabolites other than cyanide may be of therapeutic significance, and that local release of cyanide may play a role in those tumors which do have a significant level of beta-glucosidase. (Levels of beta-glucosidase measured in tissue homogenates would underestimate actual beta-glucosidase activity in vivo, since beta-glucosidase itself is a lysosomal enzyme activated by acidity; thus amygdalin, by enhancing this acidification, might catalyze its own cleavage at the cancer site.) If amygdalin does indeed work as an anti-neoplastic im-

252

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

munostimulant, there might be some merit in the notion that the daily ingestion of nitrilosides, by maintaining non-toxic cyanide levels, might potentiate immune surveillance and thereby lessen the frequency of observable tumors. Certainly the results of Sugiura (greatly lessened frequency of lung metastasis, a lesser but statistically significant decrease in the frequency of development of spontaneous mammary cancer, better therapeutic results in smaller tumors), of Haagen (lessened frequency of tumor take), and of Reitnauer (ad libitum feeding of bitter almonds inhibiting tumor growth) are consistent with this notion. Krebs claims that many primitive tribes which now or in the recent past had diets high in nitrilosides have remained relatively cancer free as long as they have adhered to their native diets. Unfortunately, this claim is rather difficult to evaluate. There are numerous claims on record by early doctors, traders and missionaries to the effect that cancer was extremely rare in primitive tribes. I counted no less than seven letters in the 1923 edition of the British Medical Journal confirming this rarity. For example, “In Northern Nigeria the extreme rarity of carcinoma may be judged by the fact that the only recorded case at any rate in recent years, was one of carcinoma mammae in an old woman from Sokoto, and this specimen is now in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons. ...I may add that during a period of two years in Abyssinia I neither saw nor heard of a case of carcinoma from my French, Greek, Italian, and Russian colleagues, all of whom had large practices in the capital.” Another states, “One of the most lively impressions present to the mind of the medical worker in Nigeria after two or three years of routine work among the people is the apparent rarity of carcinoma. Personally, I have been looking for it in the spot for some twenty-two years; and my experience resembles that of my colleague, Dr. Dyer Sharp: I have never seen a case of carcinoma, or of sarcoma. Some of the medical men in the-coastal regions of Nigeria encounter car_ cinoma occasionally; but chiefly among natives whose diet-

Appendix

253

etic and other domestic practices they have copied. . .” Several of the letters mention cases which the authors have personally encountered or heard of, to dispute the claim that the African is immune to cancer. Albert Schweitzer wrote: “On my arrival to Gabon in 1913, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer. I saw none among the natives two hundred miles from the coast... . I cannot, of course, say positively that there was no cancer at all, but, like other frontier doctors, I can only say that, if any cases existed, they must have been quite rare. This absence of cancer seems to be due to the difference in nutrition of the natives compared to the Europeans....” As recently as 1949, Moorman, in the JAMA (139:375), referring to the Hopi and Navajo Indians whom he treated, recommended study of “‘the very low incidence of cancer and its possible relation to diet. Dr. Salsbury at Ganada Mission Hospital reports only 36 cases of malignant conditions, all types, in 30,000 admissions. In the same number of white persons he would have found approximately 1,800.” Several objections can be raised to these early reports. Diagnostic facilities were doubtless rather primitive and many cases of cancer may have been passed over. The relative paucity of older age groups due to the prevalence of infectious disease would decrease over all cancer incidence. Early physicians may have been less familiar with the pathological processes typical of the native population and thus less likely to spot them. A genuine rarity of cancer may have led physicians to drop it from their differential diagnoses. Yet, the same volume of the British Medical Journal which testifies to the rarity of cancer in Africa contains a communication referring to the high incidence of cancer in China. One would expect the prevalence of infectious disease and the scarcity of medical facilities typical of Africa to have held for China at this time as well, and yet the diagnosis of cancer was made with great regularity in China. Recently collected data is of little help in resolving the matter since while hospitals were becoming more sophisticated, diagnosis more exact, the record keeping more careful, native populations were becoming Westernized, exposed to a

254

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

different set of carcinogens and a different diet. However, recent age-adjusted statistics of cancer incidence in Ibadan, Nigeria and Kyadondo County, Uganda, show an extremely interesting trend. In both of these populations, the incidence of cancer after age 60 levels out and indeed declines, while in Western nations it continues to rise steeply. The yearly incidence of all types of cancer was found to be about 95 per 100,000 in the seventy plus age bracket in Ibadan. Western rates in the same age group are usually well above 2,000 per 100,000. Even more strikingly, only one case of cancer in six years was recorded from those 85 or older, despite the fact that over a thousand Ibadan residents fell into this category; this amounts to an incidence less than that found in twenty-year olds in Western nations. In Kyadondo, the average annual incidence in the seventy-plus group was 125 per 100,000. J.N.P. Davis, author of the Kyadondo study, points out that the vast majority of the population has faith in and will use medical facilities when ill, that medical care is free and readily available, and that observed cancer cases are registered almost without fail; thus it is unlikely that these striking findings are artifacts due to sampling errors. In contrast, statistics from Bulawayo, Rhodesia show the typical Western increase with age. It is therefore difficult to explain the Nigerian and Ugandan statistics by means of a selection against the immunologically unfit due to infectious disease. The staple foods of many tropic people are high in cyanogenetic glucosides. Cassava, sweet potatoes, sorghum, millet, maize and various beans contain varying amounts of nitrilosides. The major staple of Nigeria is cassava. Ugandan diets are usually rich in cassava, millet and sweet potatoes. Unfortunately, methods of preparation of these foods vary greatly from tribe to tribe, for which reason there is considerable variation of the nitriloside content of the final product. Without more data on dietary nitriloside contents, it becomes extremely difficult to attempt a correlation between cancer incidence and nitriloside intake. There is little doubt that tropical diets may in some instances produce significant serum cyanide levels. Osuntokun

Appendix

255

has shown that a tropical ataxic neuropathy of Nigeria is associated with high serum levels of thiocyanate (the chief detoxification product of cyanide, with which cyanide is in equilibrium), low serum levels of the sulfur containing amino acids involved in this detoxification, and with monotonous daily diets very rich in cyanogenetic glucosides. Robert Houston has postulated that the relatively mild clinical form of sickle cell anemia found in sickle cell homozygotes in some African populations may be due to palliative effects exerted by serum cyanide and thiocyanate. (These molecules are currently being used experimentally in the treatment of sickle cell crises.) Cases of fatal cyanide poisoning both in men and in animals due to the ingestion of improperly prepared nitriloside sources have been recorded in the literature. There is certainly no hard evidence that cyanogenetic glycosides are causally related to the strikingly lower incidence of cancer in the older members of certain African populations; a multiplicity of factors is undoubtedly involved. The possibility, though, is certainly worth investigating. In any case, Western man can certainly learn some important lessons from the fascinating epidemiology of cancer in Africa. Krebs is so impressed with the potential of nitrilosides as cancer preventatives that he has designed the entire group of Vitamin B-17. Needless to say, this has not endeared him to the forces of orthodoxy. So saying, let us leave this mechanistic digression and get back to explaining the factors that have placed Laetrile in its current disrepute. 6. The trophoblastic litany. In addition to dogmatic preachments about Laetrile’s mechanism of action, Krebs has incorporated his advocacy of Laetrile into a body of dogma which he calls ‘‘the trophoblastic hypothesis.’”’ First formulated by John Beard in 1902, this is the thesis that all cancers rise from trophoblast cells, the progenitors of which (“‘the diploid totipotent cell”) were misplaced during the process of embryogenesis, loding in various tissues of the body. It is held that these progenitor cells may later be stimulated by estrogen to undergo meiosis and produce trophoblast, the multiplication of which constitutes cancer. (Krebs dismisses de-

256

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

differentiation of cells as a carcinogenic mechanism because “the reversion of normal cells to a primitive state....isa thermodynamic fantasy inadmissible by modern biology.”’) Since Krebs believes that during pregnancy the trophoblast is made to regress by the action of pancreatic enzymes, he includes injections of pancreatic enzymes in his treatment regimen, and excludes items from the diet which allegedly decrease the serum levels of these enzymes. (Trials of pancreatic enzyme therapy by Shimkin in 1949 showed that the only appparent effect of this treatment was anaphylaxis.) (For Krebs’ sake it should be pointed out that cancer tissue often does seem to mimic various properties of trophoblast. For example, in the past few years it has been shown that a significant proportion of cancers secrete measurable levels of HCG, a product previously thought specific for trophoblast; and recently it has been shown that HCG blocks T cell stimulation (by PHA) and is a membrane antigen both of trophoblast and a high percentage of tumors. Thus, HCG may confer immunological protection to both trophoblast and cancer. Serum HCG may contribute to the generalized immuno-suppression often observed in late stage cancer. See the July “75 issue of Cancer Research, page 1887.) More damaging than the dogmatic litanies of Krebs is the opinion which many of the less intelligent Laetrile advocates express of the standard anti-cancer measures - - surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy - - which they will often characterize as “cutting, burning, and poisoning.’’ In contrast, Laetrile is touted as the “natural”? means of controlling cancer - - thus amygdalin became the cause celebre of the nature faddists. It is extremely unfortunate that amygdalin should be set up as an alternative rather than a supplementary therapy. It is undoubtedly the case that some patients have refused possibly curative surgery or radiotherapy and taken amygdalin as exclusive therapy - - then died. Thus lives are needlessly lost, and orthodox clinicians who care about their patients come to develop a raging resentment against amygdalin. No responsible physician who uses Laetrile (and I believe there are many) would recommend its use exclusive of all other

Appendix

257

methods. (If indeed amygdalin treatmerft is a form of immunotherapy, one would expect its efficacy to be compromised by immuno-suppressive chemotherapeutic agents. Thus in cases of inoperable cancer in which immuno-suppressive chemotherapeutic palliation is contemplated, it might be wiser to attempt first a course of immunostimulant therapy, and then resort to the chemotherapeutic if a good response is not obtained.) 7. The anecdotal nature of clinical studies involving amygdalin. No carefully documented study with five year followup has been published on amygdalin, despite over twenty years of clinical use. A number of anecdotal case histories have been published, claiming tumor regressions, life prolongations, significant subjective improvement and cures, but such observations can always be attributed to spontaneous regression or placebo effects unless hard statistics are available. Furthermore, these anecdotal accounts are often deficient in ways mentioned previously in connection with the 1953 CMA study - - inadequate documentation of the progress of the tumor, concurrent use of other treatment modalities, insufficient proof of malignancy. In short, the available data

would not be such as to change the mind of anyone who had a strong predisposition to believe that amygdalin was a quack remedy. The case histories of Dr. John Morrone are among the best documented, and are the only Laetrile histories to date to be published in an American medical journal (Experimental Medicine and Surgery, no. 4, 1963). Morrone reported on 10 cases of inoperable malignancy treated with i.v. Laetrile. I will quote a representative example: “Case 2. J.S., age 74, male, married, pattern maker, weight 163 lb., height 62 in., blood pressure 188/100 mm. Diagnosis inoperable carcinoma of the left lung with metastasis to the mediastinum. Urinalysis and hematology negative. “During the last six months the patient complained of cough, constant chest pain, dyspnea, blood-tinged expectoration, anorexia, and loss of weight (15 lbs.). An X-ray revealed a mass in the left side of the chest suggestive of a neo-

258

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

plasm. Bronchoscopy and a biopsy established the diagnosis of carcinoma of the lung. Exploratory thoracotomy showed extensive carcinoma of the left lung with metastases and many perforations of the pleura, diaphragm, aorta, pericardium and mediastinum. The condition was considered inoperable. < “Pain was so constant and severe that the patient took meperidine hydrochloride and codeine every two or three hours. When interviewed, he had such great difficulty in talking and breathing that his wife had to give the history. “Physical examination revealed icteric sclerae, pallid con-junctivae, sluggish reflexes, enlarged and tender cervical supraclavicular glands, dullness and moist rales over the left of the chest, and edema of the ankles extending up the knees. ‘“‘Laetrile 1 Gm. was injected intravenously, in five minutes the systolic blood pressure dropped 28 mm but there were no signs of shock or other adverse effects. Three days later the patient reported that the pain had been less severe since the injection but that he had suffered for two days from pain in the left shoulder and side of the chest. Analgesics were still required. “After the second intravenous injection of Laetrile 1 Gm., the systolic blood pressure fell 15 mm but there were no sidé effects other than burning and itching in the left shoulder area. One week later the patient returned to the office unassisted. Pain, dyspnea and edema were considerably diminished. His color and general appearance were considerably improved. “In a period of seven weeks he received sixteen injections of Laetrile, seven of 1 Gm., six of 1.5 Gm., and three of 2 Gm. There was a prompt fall of blood pressure following the injections, ranging from 8 to 28 mm. Pain was reduced and appetite improved but there was no weight gain. He was able to discontinue use of meperidine hydrochloride and codeine. There were no apparent adverse effects from the injections as shown by the before and after hemograms and urinalysis.” Morrone summarized his results as follows: “The use of Laetrile (1-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuroniside),

Appendix

259

in beta cyanogenetic glucoside, intravenously in 10 cases of inoperable cancer, all with meta$tases, provided dramatic relief of pain, discontinuance of narcotics, control of fetor, improved appetite, and reduction of adenopathy. The results suggest regression of the malignant lesion. “A fall of blood pressure occurred in all cases after administration of Laetrile. This side effect was easily avoided by using phenylephrine hydrochloride 0.3-1 mg. in the same syringe with the Laetrile solution. “No other side effects were noted except slight itching and a sensation of heat in the affected areas, which was transitory in all cases. “Comparison of before and after hemograms showed definite improvement in the red blood cell count and hemoglobin in most cases. Differential blood counts and urinalyses were entirely negative.” (The transient hypotensive effect noted by Morrone and other clinicians is indirect evidence of the prompt production of cyanide following i.v. administration of amygdalin. Thiocyanate, the detoxification product of cyanide, is a hypotensive agent.) Morrone considered this study to be only preliminary, and planned to do five year follow-up on all treated patients. Tragically, he died soon after the publication of his paper. My own subjective impression is that I have seen too many case histories of cancer regression after amygdalin use for them all to be due to spontaneous regression. I am also struck by the consistency and frequency of the claims that amygdalin produced relief from pain, improvement of appetite, weight gain, and an improvement in the sense of wellbeing in a large fraction of patients treated. There are nu-

merous

cases cited in which patients who had formerly re-

quired

opiates

every

several

hours

to relieve

excruciating

pain, were able to quit opiates entirely after beginning Laetrile therapy. I have my doubts that many such BeOS can be ascribed merely to placebo effects. Above all, I find it distressing that in all the years that the Laetrile controversy has raged, no major medical institution has done a controlled double blind study to test the ability

260

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

of amygdalin to alleviate pain in cancer patients. If such a study had positive results, the way would then be open for more extensive clinical testing. (Of course, any American institution attempting such a study would require a special dispensation from the FDA.) Another fact which adds to the credibility of amygdalin’s therapeutic value is that it is being used by independentminded physicians in many different areas of the world - - the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, among others. There have been many quack cancer remedies, but few if any have garnered such a large worldwide following. Most of these physicians are not “true believers” of the Krebs litany, but rather have tried amygdalin clinically out of curiosity and have become convinced that it gets results. I am included to place some credence in the clinical judgment of so many physicians, especially since this judgment must be constantly exercised in the planning of cancer chemotherapeutic regimens. My own subject opinion may be of little value. But I do believe that objective evidence is strong enough to justify a firm demand for a carefully designed trial of amygdalin at a major U.S. medical institution. 8. Groupthink. Once having formed an opinion or taken a stand, a bureaucracy will be very unwilling to back down and admit that it has erred. (One can imagine the sublime anguish of the ACS when faced with the prospect of admitting that Krebs may have had something after all, and that they had outlawed for over twenty years a drug which might have helped thousands of cancer patients.) It may have a tendency to create a fantasy world where every emperor wears clothes and every endless tunnel has large lights installed at regular intervals. Members of the bureaucracy who refuse to “play ball” may be subject to certain sanctions - - in this case, loss of promotions or grant money. A factor which is contributing to the dogmatic nature of the official stance on Laetrile is the information vacuum regarding the work that has been done with it. The physician in the field has had little or no exposure to original research literature on amygdalin: all he is likely to know is that the

Appendix

261

natural product (isolated from natural sources, such as apricot pits), it cannot be patented. The McNaughton Foundation could have made no more money selling amygdalin than by selling aspirin. Nevertheless it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on experiments to accumulate hundreds of pages of evidence testifying to amygdalin’s non-toxicity and readily demonstrable efficacy in Walker 256 carcinosarcoma. It was denied permission to conduct clinical trials because highly prejudiced FDA officials found some undotted “7’s” in its presentation, and because the U.S. mail during a particular week was not any more prompt than it usually is. And that is where matters have stood since 1970. If the regulatory agencies countiue to suppress amygdalin’s clinical testing, and continue to perpetrate a dogma for which they have no evidence, one of the primary results will be that more and more bewildered cancer patients will reject orthodox medicine altogether and perhaps die as a result. Or, just possibly, some of them might live because they will get the amygdalin that the cancer bureaucracy has denied them.

aes — fn Me ; ute men es ome lie

wbiis ates) tteS20 aaa

eae ae

WE Tiel i Preset radar gf tt

Shs

ai etef oath eS ieee sai seed adit hy? Ee“bh

fT

|iy

OP VRE fi sige?

7

CTO) airek fairs at aba

i baba yi tie if yore

mn iS hes i iae. a 5 aise

aN ‘s

t wii?saad

iy oP

e

Solineey bAE ats

He aieORtiee

ass Pier wT ue a oriteats YA sR waite Me vg hi NIE wie

irmenee

Lia

byFea!

acest

i

c

ee

rar,

“

aga

OG

het AAG

yy 'e4 4s

5

me

LIT

; te

tiation o~*

Siagag: 7.

penrnelt

Wa My bad 7 De ia 2 SRL

crt Wee Saerinky SY Uae:

de>

Pe Dy 2 Ciaaee ayes

~

’

oeeso

9

:pas ip Saystif

Radiges hl

eras hin

5

Po

=

;

V2

aid

5

ib

a! Wee : Betti }

t!

eG

sity

vars Lt?

Bo Oe See

“af

need =

LAETRILE WORKS* é

by Mark McCarty

University of California School of Medicine San Diego September 1976

In a long 26, 1975) I that Laetrile cancer; that

article appearing in the Triton Times (Nov. 24, pointed out that there is really no good evidence does not have value in the treatment of human the present obstructionist attitude toward Lae-

trile derives from a bull-headed adherence to positions taken in the fifties and sixties by the California Medical Association on the basis of inadequate evidence; and that the dogma of Laetrile as a quack drug runs so deep that the medical establishment even refuses to permit controlled clinical trial of Laetrile in the U.S. At the time I wrote this article I was sincerely openminded about Laetrile’s possible efficacy. I am happy to report that this is no longer the case, and that I am now thoroughly convinced that Laetrile does indeed have merit in cancer therapy. This conviction derives from a visit which I recently made to the Contreras clinic as well as the newly opened Clinica Cydel in Tijuana. I talked with Dr. Contreras at length; he impressed me as modest, soft-spoken, and candid. He is now completing a ten-year summary of the cases which he has treated with Laetrile alone; the results are as follows: total remission (tumor disappears) in 4% of patients so treated; partial remission (defined as 25% greater decrease in tumor volume) in 40%; substantial subjective improvement (decrease of pain, appetite improvement and weight gain,etc.) *Reprinted with permission J OURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 3/4., 1976

263

from

CANCER

CONTROL

264

in 66%.

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

Contreras particularly mentioned his three cases of

five-year survival in oat cell carcinoma. The quack hunters of the AMA have so far refused to accept Contreras’ data as offering genuine proof of Laetrile’s efficacy. The large majority of his patients have received prior treatment in the U.S. or Canada; therefore, any remission occurring during Laetrile therapy alone can be explained away as a delayed reaction to previous therapy. That fact is that such delayed reactions are relatively rare and could not possibly account for a 40% rate of partial remission; but the quack hunters are so, thoroughly wedded to the dogma of Laetrile as hoax that they will resort to any other explanation, no matter how improbably, before they will admit that Laetrile may actually have had a beneficial effect. The frequent claim that Contreras’ cases do not have adequate histological diagnoses is obviously false, since the great majority of these cases have previously been diagnosed and treated in the states. It is true that Contreras does not have long-term follow-up information on most of his patients, and so it is difficult to say whether any substantial impact on five-year survival results; but it is only reasonable to suspect that a treatment which can often bring about tumor shrinkage without toxicity to the immune system will result in some degree of life prolongation for many patients. Many Laetrile opponents speak of the lack of long-term follow-up as if it were a crushing blow to the Laetrile argument - - which only goes to show how inanely ritualistic the American medical community can become in its approach to knowledge.

As to the 4% incidence of total remission - - the rate of spontaneous complete remission in human cancer is usually estimated to be about | per 100,000 cases. It was revealing to speak with the patients undergoing treatment at the Contreras clinic. Many patients described a dramatic relief of pain and renewed sense of well-being after several days of Laetrile treatment. One young man, whose case had been characterized as hopeless by his doctors, reported the total disappearance of three large colon cancer metastases after three months of taking 1 gram per day of Laetrile orally; his doctors now wish to perform a reverse col-

Appendix

265

ostomy. I did not meet a single patient who felt that he or she had been hoaxed. Many of them urged me to spread the word that Laetrile therapy was indeed efficacious, and should be made available to anyone who desires it. Most of these patients impressed me as down-to-earth and reasonably intelligent, and I refuse to believe that their 66% incidence of strong subjective response is merely mass hysteria; indeed, it would take a fanatic, criminal arrogance to speak with these radiant, delighted terminal patients and still come away with the impression that they were all pitiful dupes and cranks. I had the good fortune to speak with Dr. Isahary, who is the physician in charge of medical services to the entire Israeli army, and as such is one of the most prestigious physicians in Israel. He has recently completed several weeks of Observation of the Tijuana Laetrile clinics, and has come away completely convinced that Laetrile is a valuable palliative agent in cancer therapy. His official report will lead to extensive clinical trials in Israel. The only real evidence which Laetrile opponents can cite to support their view is the fact that Laetrile appears to have no ability to prolong life with a number of transplantable rat and mouse tumors. Should a rat with a transplanted tumor be accepted as a fully adequate model for the human cancer patient? Evidently not -- many chemotherapeutic agents regularly produce complete regressions and cures in many of these transplantable tumor systems, yet such outcomes are extremely rare in most types of human cancer. This discrepancy probably results from the fact that transplanted tumors are selected for rapid growth, since chemotherapeutic trials with rapid growing tumors can be completed more quickly (besides which, the process of serial transplantation will automatically select for rapid growing tumor variants). To sustain such rapid growth a well developed vasculature is evidently required. In my previous article I speculated that cyanide released by Laetrile cleavage might have a selective toxic effect on tumors, since oxygen and glucose are present in very low concentrations in those tumors which are not strongly vascular. (LeVeen has recently measured the rate of blood flow through a number of human tumors and found it

266

LAETRILE : Nutritional Control for Cancer

to range from only 2 to 15% of that of normal tissue (JAMA 235 (1976), 2198). I cited several experimental studies in which intravenous cyanide had a selective anti-tumor action. Tannock (J. Nat. Can. Inst. 45 (1970), 123) has shown that hypoxia can significantly slow the growth of a poorly vascularized transplantable tumor, while having no effect on the growth of a better vascularized tumor of intestinal epithelium. If my speculation as to Laetrile’s mechanism is correct, then the lack of response by well-vascularized rapidly growing transplantable tumors is to be expected. Most animal experimenters working with Laetrile have reasoned that if Laetrile is an effective agent then it should have greatest activity in those tumors which are most responsive to other established chemotherapeutics - - in fact, precisely the opposite may be the case. Such a mechanism would also explain why so few cures are achieved with Laetrile therapy - - a lessened substrate availability would produce some initial necrosis and force the tumor to grow more slowly and circumspectly, but would not prevent growth altogether (unless the growth retardation enables the immune response to gain the upper hand). {n vitro studies show that some metabolite of Laetrile rather than Laetrile itself must be the active anti-cancer agent. Is it valid to assume that mice and rats metabolize Laetrile in the same manner as humans? It is a commonplace that many drugs show marked interspecies differences in metabolism. Many patients, some of whom can no longer achieve adequate analgesia with opiates, report very dramatic relief of pain while undergoing Laetrile therapy. I rather doubt that the Laetrile animal experimenters have asked their treated rats whether they were experiencing any pain relief. Nevertheless, negative results in animal life prolongation studies have been used as the basis for banning all clinical trials of Laetrile in the U.S. Since my first article I have learned, by way of journalist David Rorvik’s newsletter ‘‘Laetrile: The Goddamned-Contraband-Apricot Connection,” that Franz Schmid at SloanKettering has tried: Laetrile in the same mouse spontaneous mammary tumor in which Dr. K. Seguira has consistently

Appendix

267

shown a suppression of lung “metastases with Laetrile. Schmid found that 20 treated mice lived an average of 53 days as opposed to the 40 day average survival of 20 control mice. He repeated this experiment with a lower dose of Laetrile and found a 61 day average survival in the treated group and a 41 day survival in controls. (Most of the transplanted tumors in which Laetrile has shown no efficacy kill their host in about 20 days or less.) Other positive animal studies with Laetrile are cited in my previous article. I urge everyone who currently treats or who someday will treat cancer patients, to gain a first hand acquaintance with the Laetrile problem. Make a visit to the Tijuana clinics, talk with the patients and doctors. Bear in mind that the American cancer bureaucracy is as fully susceptible to delusion and rigid persecutory dogma as is any other bureaucracy. Above all, insist that fair controlled clinical trials of Laetrile be permitted and encouraged in the U.S.

I do not expect anyone to be converted to Laetrile advocacy on the basis of this article alone. But I would like to make one point which should win wide agreement; which is: That an alledgedly scientific agency which is so sunk in narcissistic bureaucratic formalism that it will allow the results of certain drug trials in animals - - results which are of dubious relevance to the realities of human disease, and, moreover, which are far from unanimously negative - - to justify the banning of the only measure which could provide a universally accepted test of this drug’s true efficacy in humans- - a controlled clinical trial - - in utter disregard of the enthusiastic testimony of literally thousands of Americans from all walks of life who claim great benefit from this admittedly non-toxic drug: such an agency is worthy only of the most withering contempt. Someday the persecution of this harmless cancer palliative will be viewed as one of the most grotesque and inexcusable episodes in the history of American medicine. God knows that terminal cancer patients deserve every break they can get.

}f

Sean

Seas

eee

Kiceat vl

oetuc lisa

-

eae HEsr ibsecrt

ortega

est

ofp

ror

Ht hae

ES Yi wh a

PY

ns

ae

Ciutat geen Foe

er Pe iig

an af ee Scat

ae

oe

al

cone

ergo V-cbut rite al 12d, ee

Ursa lens; LaPorte

elt iid Jernamblae ie ncbipe ghanwk

EH seh wie aceite raliareenADS S-ppiti« RCT ERT . tiers te

AMEN? «istipiacnnnty sccaieeit wh gansta ty SRtiwa wert ietrome- ens eu ahewl aso Dias1

t ugk AR fee weet Pea

tenis tees mires ral Sorrokand best

at i

fr. abs Heigh ohaldinavarcstlgt rp a Dabo fagerinioned avis von et Be wigob yrotussersy bight Sonme ete Tite lestarn Wide Bangi tesasciabe hullgamao

eae!’

ae

bitte

iatadiishigend gully

sdedn

snr yer See

St

ow

ee

rivaa

ie ae

aeielpes awit Gomes

Shi

sat Wiha

soreness

“LbGerthe yrs